That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

May I point out con did not post his arguments, only refute mine. His BoP is that only one of the theories should be taught, yet he failed to provide any arguments for it. Posting arguments in the third round means I have to refute in the fourth round, where I should put my recap, so that is not good for con. Take note of this while voting. My opponent drops various important points, as I will point out in the fourth round (if I have enough space. ) I will refute the rebuttals that con has. ==CA1: Demand==My opponent states that it is only a 50/50 split in belief. This is true, but he provides no evidence that people who believe in evolution want evolution taught more than people who believe in creationism want creationism taught. Thus, we can see that Americans want creationism taught just as much as they want evolution taught. Polls also back this up. In another Gallup poll, we see that more people are not happy when evolution is taught versus when creationism is taught. We also see that people who want creationism taught in school is 30%. While it may seem like a low number, it is higher than the people who want evolution taught [1]. He states that over 66% of Americans want only evolution taught. He states no evidence for this claim, and it has been proven false. Then, we see that 30% of people would be upset if only evolution was taught, and just 18% upset if only creationism was taught. And then we see my position, both of the theories taught, has just a 4% unhappy rate, significantly lower than all of the other options. We can see that my opponent's rebuttal is both false and can be easily turned around. This point stands, and is solid evidence as to why creationism should be taught in public schools. In conclusion, the following points that my opponent presented stand falsified:-More than 2/3 of Americans want Evolution taught-We see that people don't necessarily want Creationism taught, it is just belief-That evolution is the "favored theory"==CA2: One of the theories is most likely correct. ==My opponent starts out by saying that teaching creationism as an elective is a violation of "separating church and state. " Then, teaching evolution is a violation of "separating science and state," which is obviously false. It is absolutely harmless to have creationism as an elective. He shows no valid reason as to why the separation of church and state would be broken, and no good reason why it shouldn't be taught as an elective. Ok, say you learn math at home. You can't not just learn math at school, can you? You'd need to go deeper to understand it. That would be what a creationism elective does. For example, your parents probably know all the math taught to you in school. Same goes for creationism. But you go to school and math class to better understand it and find new ways to look at it. Same goes with creationism. I say it "doesn't necessarily have to be taught in science classrooms. " I would like you to point out exactly where I said it can't be taught in science classrooms. It can be taught because it is a well-believed explanation of life. Any good, solid explanation of life should be in the science classroom, or at least in school, so students know a few ways life could've began. Creationism does have some evidence supporting it. This includes both scientific evidence and scientific laws [2], such as the laws of thermodynamics, such as the fact that the universe could not have existed forever nor created itself. We also have evidence for evolution, making both theories sound and both of them completely possible. I would like to see where Ken Ham references what my opponent states. So that will end my second counter argument. ==CA3: Children should know all sides of the story==My opponent's only rebuttal to this is that people learn religion at home. First, you don't show any evidence that creationism isn't a side that can be taught in school. That really missed the point. Evolutionists, like myself, do not learn religion at home. They should learn it at school to know all sides of the story, which was my whole point. I would like my opponent to focus more on the main point in my third argument. Until then, this arguments stands as correct and unrefuted. I hand this debate over to my opponent and wish him luck! [1] . http://www.gallup.com...[2] . http://www.icr.org...