Creationism should not be taught in schools

Point: Pro creation polls. 'More Americans believe in intelligent design than evolution. ' On further inspection of the source I find this claim to be false. Although not a majority, though these statistics do point to a staggering proportion of Americans, 46% who hold 'that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. ' Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature. The belief that humans are 10,000 years old is totally wrong and can be easily proved so. There are cave paintings that come from 40,000 years ago(1) and tools have been found 1.4 million years old(2). Point 4: Support of Scientific Community 'A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center 13% of scientists say evolution is not due to natural processes, such as natural selection. ' This first statement is seemingly false. Looking at the source by the Pew Research Centre, I found that the actual fact was that 'Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time'.(3) Con's other source, the discovery institutes collection of signatures 'against Darwinism' under close analysis was proved to have only 0.01% of signatures listed being in relevant field(4). Looking further into the issue and evaluating sources on the internet I find that the vast majority of sources point to a near unanimous support of scientists of evolution. One source by Brian Alters, an expert in the evolution-creationism controversy states that '99.9% of scientists accept evolution'(5). In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory"(6). I found an extensive list of prominent scientific organisations that have issued statements in support of evolution.(7) Evidence for Evolution The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources: The fossil record of change in earlier species. The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms. The geographic distribution of related species. The recorded genetic changes in loving organisms over many generations. Con states that mutations are 'not precise enough to be evaluated for credibility'. All I can say to this is that as with the case with natural processes, the precise figures you are looking for are hard to find if possible to find at all. And how do you measure something that's happening on a cellular level in a living thing, you can't put cells under a microscope and watch them mutate as it's a very subtle process. The persistence of the white moth con argues is evidence against evolution. The persistence of the white moth is due to a reversal of environmental conditions so that darker moths adaption is no longer as useful(9). I fail to see how this is evidence against evolution, could Con elaborate? Con uses the gap between micro and macro evolution as evidence against. Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciationin a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. Con claims 'most extinctions due to catastrophes - no evidence of any extinctions due to competition'. This statement is totally false. Can I use the example of the grey squirrels pushing the red squirrels to the edge of extinction in the UK due to their larger size and competition over food. The dodo was made extinct due to introduction of new species and competition to its native island. Con's final point was: 'no credible (even hypothetical) account of the origin of the first self-replicator, DNA/proteins, the cell, human intelligence' I found this to be a very interesting point and leads to a great question, what was the first life form? This is one of the main reasons people have faith in God. How can something come out of nothing? The answer of course to them is God. Science hasn't found the answer to this question, yet. But a recent study found that oil Oil droplets, under the right conditions creep purposefully through their watery environment, metabolize fuel, sense their surroundings and perhaps even replicate. These could be clues to early life. Closing arguments A point which I have so far failed to mention is the legality of teaching creation in schools. The 'Establishment Clause' in the Constitution states that congress “Shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The prevalence of Christianity in the U.S makes it inescapable that any form of creationism would undoubtedly be coming from a Christian perspective. Therefore this would be illegal. This is why Intelligent Design is not openly creationism as it comes from a heavily Christian perspective(10) and this is why it chooses particular legally chosen language. Any implementation of Creationism in the US would be unconstitutional. I would like to finish my arguments highlighting that I have a respect for religious people and people are free to think whatever they like. The issue with me is that the three fields of science, biology, chemistry and physics should remain pure in their science. I think that religion and evolution do not have to be in contention. I quote Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury on creationism: "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," It's not as if when the biblical scholars of the old testament sat down and thought, “right, how am I going to explain this”. The religious texts should be taken on a spiritual level, metaphorical for a divine creators true intent if you believe in that. The modern creationist movement is based on misguided interpretations of religious texts and any effort to have their misguided interpretations put into teaching syllabuses is a grave mistake which will affect a students understanding of evolution, and more widely, science. Many thanks to my opponent for an enlightening debate. I ended up very squeezed for space and have posted an extra quote in comments. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.people-press.org...( same as con) http://www.nsf.gov... http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov... http://www.science.unsw.edu.au... http://ncse.com...; http://anthro.palomar.edu... http://www.millerandlevine.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.nap.edu...