Public schools schould teach Creationism.

I will first of all like to agree to my opponent's resolutionary analysis on that the word "should" means a basic obligation by public schools to teach this subject. However I do not agree with the Pro's definitional analysis of the word "teach. " He offers the following "Creationism is important to understand. It does NOT need to be taught as TRUE, as the resolved does NOT state this. It merely says it should be taught. As I've shown, teaching, which is defined as imparting with knowledge, helps teach students how these fields of study have developed, as well as how to understand past societies. " This statement only uses half of the definition used, and must be thought about in the context of today's society. The whole definition is "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in. " You will notice that you left out the part that this definition includes imparting skill in this subject, being creationism. One does not develop skills in a subject if it was not taught to be true, which if taught in public schools would be the case. Responding to contention 1) Creationism is relevant in the teaching of history. As I have stated before, given instruction and knowledge of anything means that it being taught in the first place is the indication that it must be taught as fact. And if I put his in relation to your first contention, you should notice some things. First of all, if creationism is so relevant in the teaching of history, and really needs to taught in public schools as factual, then why aren't you also concerned with the ideology that the earth was created flat? Of course, this theory has been proven wrong by other theories currently taught in public schools, but since this way of thinking was so important to understanding contextual history, do you really believe that we should impart knowledge and instruction that it has a possibility of being true and make our children listen for the reasons? The same idea can be applied to multiple "theories" such as Holocaust denial, the Geocentric Theory, and so on. 2) Teaching Creationism helps explain modern science protocol I honestly don't see how this has relevancy in our debate. Most people in the world believe in creationism of some sort, and therefore, would probably take offense to the fact that you would categorize this teaching as a "blunder. " That being said, I don't think that science protocol was made to counteract the lack of evidence of fundamental creationism. Your leap in logic is assuming that modern science was meticulous by way of stemming from creationist ideology. I agree with your claim that creationism is without strong evidence however and will later use this in my case. Now onto my case ----------------------------------- I stand in firm negation of this resolution. Here are my reasons 1) Creationism Vs Evolution. I do not need to push this point too hard because you admitted yourself of the overwhelming lack of evidence creationism has and how it explains our scientific frontier being so based around fact. We obviously don't agree on the definition of teach, but i await your rebuttal on that. 2) Separation of church and state. Creationism does have a role to play in our world, a big role in fact. It gives many a sense of belonging and purpose, even if that is not true. It gives many people joy, hope, and relief. However, it remains a religious doctrine and I chose a definition specifically because the words "scientific theory" are never to be found, and rightfully so. Also, you must understand something about our world. It is multicultural. This is very important to keep in mind because the number of religious deities that are accredited the creation of everything man knows are almost limitless. Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Horus, Etc. When teaching the religious doctrine, the question has to be asked "who really stuck their hand in the cookie jar? " meaning, who really created our universe. Christians know for a fact that it is their god, yet Muslims know for a fact that it is their god. Involving religion in any way with public social teachings such as math, science (real science), or literature strips the fundamental value of what our country offers, which is, that government will make no law respecting any religion. In conclusion, to avoid religious indifference, intolerance, and to create a safe learning environment, religious doctrines must stay out of Public Schools. If you want your kid to learn a specific way, there are specific schools (private) that surely offer that curriculum, and you will get what you pay for. Thank you again for this debate and I await your response.