This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

I hope we have a good debate and learn many things. Onto my first point of contention, Scientific Discourse'. As stipulated by the definition given in Round 1, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. As far as I am concerned, there are three criteria which anything or any idea must fulfill before being considered as a viable thing to be taught in science classes. These three criteria are; 1. It has to study the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. 2. The study has to be through observations 3. Observations have to supported by experimental evidence. Creationism would, with great difficulty, only fulfill one of the criteria and that is the 1st criteria, which is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. Creationism would, as stipulated by the definition given, assert that God is the explanation for all physical phenomenon which take place in the Universe. However, it does not provide any observations for such a claim and furthermore, it does not provide any experimental proof to support the claim. Therefore, it is not a viable thing to be taught in a science class as it does cause scientific discourse among students, who would simply use 'God' as the explanation for all things which take place in this Universe. My second point of contention would be entitled 'Laws of Science'. In Science class, children are usually taught the meaning of 'big' words such as 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis is defined as a 'proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts'(3) and a theory is defined as 'an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true'(4). Creationism does not suffice as a hypothesis, much less a theory, because it does not work upon highly established facts. How can we, as the older generation, teach youngsters something which is not even considered a hypothesis in science class? Creationism belongs in the realm of Philosophy or Theology because it is separate from science and therefore, should not be taught in science class. Though I argue for creationism to not be taught in science class, I do not argue that it should not be taught anywhere else. Philosophy classes are the perfect place to bring up Creationism as children or students will be able to familiarize themselves with the idea of what Creationism is without mixing it with the words 'theory' or 'hypothesis'. Thank you. Please note that this round is for arguments only. As such, no rebuttals are allowed until the next round. So hold it in. I know it's difficult and I understand but it's for the debate to be crystal clear for not only the two debaters but for the people who are reading the debate right now. Thank you once again and hope you have a nice day :)