Public schools schould teach Creationism.

This debate comes down to two thing. The definition of teach and the analysis of our impacts. Let's look at first what my opponent chose to ignore from my definitional argument. My opponent made two claims about this debate. 1) That I made the claim that the definition MUST be both imparting knowledge AND skill in. This is a clear straw man as I never made this claim. My claim was and I quote, "must be thought about in the context of today's society" which was an argument dropped by my opponent. But for the sake of clarity, I will explain what I mean. In the contextual structure of creationism, it has been taught as far back as we can remember, also stated by my opponent. What he does not accept to realize is that today, it is still being taught as fact from the majority, just not in school. You and I may realize that creationism lacks in fundamental proof, reasonable logic, or empirical evidence, but that is the REASON that it must not be taught in public schools. If schools taught creationism, almost solely because it is the ideology accepted by 80% of the world, it would be taught as so. Every one of your arguments are dependent on the fact that it would not be taught as something that is true. Sarah Palin is one of many political voices trying to make this happen. What you must also understand is if creationism would be taught, what subject would it be taught as? You make the argument that it would be taught as "a blunder in history" This is just simply not true. The ceationism theory was made popular after intelligent design was deemed unconstitutional as a scientific theory for its religious content. Therefore, creationism was changed by definiton to fit scientific prerequisites, so that it could not be shut down for being religious. They have done this so that IT CAN BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN SCHOOL! This has nothing to do with history, and no pro creationist share the same idea that you have about its importance to science. They will argue that creationism IS science. According to Guardian. co. uk, 29% of teachers actually believe it should be taught as science. (1). Not the students, not priests, not concerned parents, THE ACTUAL TEACHERS. If this doesn't just blow your whole "it wont be taught as fact" position, then I'm not sure what will, but I will continue on. 2) Creationism is important to understanding history and science. Impact analysis: The impacts listed by my opponents are fuzzy, but I will see if I understand properly. Your impact is, if we do not make children aware of their history, they will not properly understand the past. This is irrelevant because if creationism is to be taught, I have proven that it would not be taught as willy nilly as you suggest. This is a very serious concept my friend. When one holds religious beliefs dear to their heart, it becomes personal. The majority of America takes it personal when you say that creationism is a blunder in science protocol and contextual history. To them it IS science and it IS their history. Just like a public school cannot and should not teach creationism as a fact, it should not be taught as nonfactual either. This also goes against the separation between church and state. My impacts are completely intact. The magnitude of teaching creationism in public schools in catastrophic because, 1) It respects religion 2) it downplays real science and 3) It creates religious intolerance between every theist group, atheists, and just peaceful people who don't want to get involved for the reason that religion is tied very emotionally. The likeliness of this happening? Its already happening. This debate is proof of that. If creationism would actually be taught, violence would ensue. In conclusion, because the society we live in wants us to teach creationism in a way that would assume that it is factual (science) then in that context, the definition battle is clearly won by me. It is an OR definition, not an AND definition, my opponent is right on that. But he is clearly wrong when he states that the definition supports him. I agree, we should teach doctrines in history. Teaching the IDEA of creationism is off topic, because the debate at hand is the scientific ideology of creationism, and if my opponent does not adhere to the resolution, the ease vote con. We as Americans need to protect our children from dangerous religious dogma, protect our constitution, and protect science. A vote for pro is a vote for ignorance. It is for these reasons, that I urge a negative ballot. Vote CON. (1) . http://www.guardian.co.uk...