Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I negate.My opponent attacks my counter-plan and says that I must argue that creationism should be valued ABOVE evolution in schools. This is only ONE of the two ways I can negate the resolution today. I can prove that "No, teaching evolution should NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools." if I value them equally.Even if you do not believe my interpretation of the resolution, refer to my Round 1 speech that responds to my opponent's term #3. I note that Con can also set up a counter-plan for HOW teaching evolution will NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools. I clearly set up a counter-plan in my Round 2 speech. I would imagine that my opponent is coming down so hard on the technics of my counter-plan because he/she is unable to sufficiently respond to its substance. But, I will examine his/her inability to do so very shortly.My opponent responds to my definition of schools with a questionable fact that 90% of schools are public schools and that we should limit the scope of the debate to JUST public schools. I refuse that limitation on the debate, because it removes the equal access that Pro and Con would have to the ballot otherwise. We should be concerned with schools as a WHOLE, because that adheres most directly to the resolution.My Contention 1:My opponent very scarcely responds to my first contention, saying that there is no evidence of Noah's Ark. Theory: In debate, each competitor is expected to carry out contention-level arguments with a reasonable burden of evidence. My opponent requests that I show him/her a piece of evidence that is beyond my implied burden of proof. This violates standards of fairness in today's round, because there is no point in completing a debate if there is an implied, preconceived disadvantage on either of the two sides. Do not extend my opponent's refutations to my first contention, because all they ask for is an excessive amount of evidence and a plea to escape from responding to the substance of the argument. But let's examine my first contention more closely:I argue that there is a fossil record of intermediate forms between known species, which is evidence of the biblical flood. I also argue that scientists have found holes in the theory of evolution, in that unique chemical or physical make-up has in and of itself disproved its validity. Thirdly, I show that Darwin's observations fit perfectly with the true biblical view of a global Flood. Finally, my opponent fails to uniquely refute my point that biochemists, astrophysicists, chemists, physiologists, and other scientists ALL endorse the biblical account of creation. If my opponent really wants to endorse the theory of evolution, he/she should first realize that without creationism, there IS no evolution. Why would so many scientists endorse the creationist theory if it were not substantiated by evidence? I would like to add that 68% of people agree with the fact that God created humans and guided their development and therefore that creationism is a prerequisite to evolution. If my opponent is still unhappy with all of the cards that I provide suggesting that evolution has holes and is ultimately supported by creationism, I would like him/her to consider the video that I have included in the sources section of this Round 3 speech. It is endorsed by a man with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.My Contention 2:My opponent responds to the statement "the goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs". Let me address each bullet point separately:1. The idea that blacks are inferior and should be slaves is not a widely held belief. The timeframe of this debate is the present and arguably the future, but it is a logical fallacy for my opponent to use examples from the past to advocate for something in which the conditions of society are vastly different.2. The idea that women are inferior and should not hold power is not a widely held belief.3. It was fine for students to learn that the universe was centered around the Earth before Galileo came and proved otherwise. What else would students have learned before this epiphany was released to the public? In other words, how could they have known better?4. I would argue that widely held beliefs that are in alliance with society's norms SHOULD be taught in schools. Students need to collect information about both sides of an argument before they can make a personal decision for themselves. For example, if a Government class teaches only about the conservative ideology of government, and students are expected to write papers endorsing only the Republican party, this is bad for democracy and limits fairness.My opponent says that more education does not matter in the scheme of today's debate. Remember that my standard of maximizing net benefits for American students goes completely unrefuted. If students have fair ground to BOTH theories (the evolutionary and creationist theories) via my counter-plan, they will be able to learn more and, as aforementioned, be better educated. This is clearly a benefit to American students, so it should be a voting issue in today's round. My opponent gives no warrant for why my counter-plan of emphasizing BOTH evolution AND creationism does not work in today's debate.My Contention 3:My opponent has absolutely no response to this contention whatsoever. He/she gives cards that show where religious doctrine has been undermined but:1. the sourcing is from "bibblebabble.curbjaw.com" or "atheism.about.com" or "discoveringislam.org", which means that it is bound to be biased and invalid right off the bat.2. does not explain WHY undermining religious doctrines is not a bad thing.According to Richlee Bruce, 86% of the world identifies themselves as religious in at least one way. Prioritizing evolution over creationism is an assault on both utilitarianism and net benefits, because freedom of religion is mandated in the Constitution and in societal norms.I would say that my third contention goes either completely or mostly unrefuted. The main idae is that schools must allow for the teaching of all valid doctrines of theories. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and disadvantageous to subject to students more non-religious, unsubstantiated evolutionary theories than valid, accepted religious norms.My opponent continues to claim that creationism is a myth but has no evidence for the claim. Remember how I show in my 1st contention a card which says that all Darwinian theories rely on creationist premises. He/she also continues to claim that evolution has evidence, but remember that much of it has holes and that the only cards that he/she has willed to provide in this debate are biased.My opponent also claims that my 64% statistic does not matter. I will post it in the sources, but the idea is that utilitarianism is a key part of maximizing net benefits. Education systems should be open to what the majority of people support; these are widely respected beliefs that deserve attention in ANY kind of school system, not JUST public schools. My opponent mentions a Supreme Court case that says that teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes is bad. Remember that it is not my burden to argue that evolution should not be valued above creationism in biology classes. It is not EVEN my burden to argue that evolution should not be valued above creationism in PUBLIC high schools.We established at the beginning of the debate that the word "schools" is equivocal and ought include not JUST public schools but also private and charter institutions. Furthermore, I do not have to argue that creationism should be taught in science classes. That is an unfair burden that does not grant the Pro and Con sides equal, fair access to the ballot.Thus, I negate.http://law2.umkc.edu...http://www.creationscience.com...; (video)http://www.nytimes.com...;