creationism is best for the science classrooms

As my favorite atheist liked to do, I will address your points in reverse order. You stated that since creationism teaches people to have a purpose in God that it is better than evolution when it comes to morals. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your third point please correct me. As someone who was never taught creationism, I learned it myself later in life, you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose. Many others as well as myself revel in the glory that is the cosmos. Space and time at a scale that large give me a poetic feel every time I think about it. All be it a personal purpose but attempting to understand everything about the cosmos is purpose enough for me. Not to mention all the friends and loved ones that give me purpose. So I believe your purpose is what you make it, not God. In your second point you illustrated how evidence for evolution not only is also evidence for creation, but is also possibly better suited supporting creationism because of your intelligent design argument. Creationism stems from the bibles account on the natural world in Genesis. So if creationism is based on the bible then that would lead to me wondering how well the bible did with predictions of how the natural world worked. After reading the bible, listening to atheists analyze the bible, apologists analyze the bible, I've read an annotated dake bible and I still can't agree with anyone that says that the bibles account of nature is correct. Adam and Eve probably didn't exist, Moses probably didn't, and Noah probably didn't. The only reason I say 'probably' is because it isn't a good idea to act certain of anything. But I am as certain as I possibly can be. (99% sure) | For all these reasons I just stated I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution. In your first point you bring up the 'fine tuning' argument. The universe is getting bigger. Even bigger than it is now, which is quite large. There could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there somewhere but are so far apart that there would be a very hard time for any of them to communicate to each other, so there could be life else where which I believe doesn't help your argument. I'll argue it's likely there is life just by the fact that the same elements that are the most abundant in our body are the same elements that are most abundant in the universe. (Regular matter only of course) But that's all just speculation. If the total energy content of the universe was 0, which is allowed by the laws of physics, the universe would be a more life permissive universe than it is now. If you don't believe me then look of professor Lawrence krauss talking about it. So that shows that even if our universe is fine tuned, it doesn't make your argument any more true. Same goes with the morality question. As for your rebutle to my opening statement. I realize you may believed I made an attempt to disprove the existence of God outright. It is impossible. The same way you won't be able to disprove Unicorns to me. So still you have made no ground.