Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I negate. Definitions: evolution - change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new speciescreationism - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent creatorvalue above - to esteem something overwhelmingly more than something else (Dictionary.com) teaching - to give instruction inschools - public, private, charter, or household-based institutions of education(Dictionary.com)Since my opponent does NOT define terms in his/her Round 2 speech, please prefer mine for today's round.My standard is NET BENEFITS FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS. Evolution and creationism are most contentiously debated in the U.S.; thus we should focus our debate on that country specifically. Since the resolution includes "in schools", it makes sense to look to net benefits for STUDENTS in America. Thus, you should vote for the side that produces the most benefits and fewest costs for students enrolled in schools in the U.S. I reject my opponent's plan and propose a counter-plan. If you read resolution closely, realize that it indicates preferability. This gives the Con two options: either I can argue that they should be taught with the SAME value OR that creationism should be valued above evolution. My counter-plan is that students be exposed to very basic concepts from each science up until the end of 5th grade. From 6th to 12th grade, students CHOOSE to take evolution OR creationism classes. They can alternate between the two and pick the smart choice for them as to which works with their religion, value system, and schedule. Regardless of which path students opted for, they would be exposed to plenty of science (ex: Physics) and various humanities courses as well (ex: Ancient Studies) Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.An observation I would like to make is that I do NOT have to prove that Creationism should be taught in PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE classes. My opponent never defines schools, so open up the table to all private and charter schools as well (as in my definition). Creationism is just as much a humanity as it is a science. It should not have to be labeled as a science class in order for my plan to be valid. The Pro burden is to show that that the benefits of esteeming evolution overwhelmingly more than creationism in schools in the U.S. outweigh the costs for American students. Prefer this burden, as Pro did not mention one. The Con burden is that the benefits of my plan (equal prioritization to both) outweigh the costs for American students. Finally, as a brief roadmap for my arguments, I'll be stating the BENEFITS of teaching creationism in schools. As long as my benefits MATCH or OUTWEIGH the benefits of evolution that my opponent extends throughout the debate, the ballot meets the Con's plan requirements and you vote Con. Contention 1: Creationism is consistent with people's intuitions of a humanities OR science class. Creationism is a theory with qualities from both classes and is tested with the scientific method. The hypothesis it adopts and upon which it relies is that God created 'the heaven and earth...' There has been valuable evidence discovered for the biblical flood. There is a fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. Scientists have also shown that some species could NOT have evolved gradually because of unique chemical or physical make-up. Organs such as the eye are 'irreducibly complex' and could NOT have evolved step-by-step as would be suggested by Darwin. According to Hurst, Darwin's observations fit PERFECTLY with the true biblical view that there was a global Flood, and animals migrated from Ararat to the islands via the neighboring mainland. He also notes that biochemists, astrophysicists, chemists, physiologists, and other scientists ALL endorse the biblical account of creation. If Darwin's theories altogether depend on a particular Creationist premise, then Creationism is the overarching field and should clearly be available to American students.Contention 2: Creationism is fundamental to a student's learning. Since the implications of creationism are far-reaching, they should be valued at least as highly as those of evolution. Open-mindedness is essential. Belief in science and evolution is NOT a reason for the rejection of the discussion of Creationist theory. According to the University of Washington, 61% of adults (as indicated by a survey) have had a meta-physical experience in their lives that canNOT be explained by existing science. Existing science is NOT a warrant for the validity of a particular concept. One of the great lessons that a school can teach its students is the ability to use their own logic to develop an opinion of the world around them. By valuing creationism as highly as evolution, schools broaden students' knowledge. The goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs. Thus, when analyzing on a net benefits framework, judges should vote for the side that promotes the most education. Seeing that my counter-plan values two theories where as my the one sided plan of my opponent evaluates only one, the Con better creates benefits.Contention 3: Creationism upholds freedom of religion. Since part of the framework regards American students, and the Constitution mandates the freedom of religion through the Establishment Clause, freedom of religion is a substantial issue in today's debate. Allowing the teaching of evolutionary theory directly undermines a religious doctrine. Impressionable students, young by definition, are more likely to believe these teachings. Mearsheimer notes that "schools must allow for the teaching of all valid doctrines and theories." Since, for centuries, most students (as the vast majority of students go to public schools for K-12 education) have been taught evolutionary concepts without a regard to creationism, there should be a mechanism to restore the balance of the two viewpoints. The way to promote freedom of religion is by offering creationism (an idea that encapsulates various different religions) and valuing it just as highly, if not more highly, as evolution. I will now make quick refutations to my opponent's points.Opponent's Contention 1: evolution can be proven scientifically. Cross-apply my first AND second contentions, where I talk about how creationism is the foundation of evolution. All of Darwin's theorires are derived from rudimentary premises from the creationist theory about the beginning of life. Without taking into account these theories, the quality of students's education is compromised, and intutions of science and humanities become less important.Opponent's Contention 2: the US has a separation of church and state. I'd like to point out that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. That is ridiculous and, as mandated by my 2nd contention, close-minded.Opponent's Contention 3: Supreme Court cases prove the validity of evolution. The decisions of Supreme Court cases do not reveal net benefits to American students. They are not a unique REASON to value evolution. All of my opponent's Supreme Court cases are about or more than 20 years old, while the debate over creationism has expanded drastically since then. But even if you still REALLY want to look to public/governmental support, I refer you to a poll by the Pew Forum: 64% of people support the idea of teaching creationism, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism. Thus, my opponent loses the public support debate because his/her evidence is archaic.Thus, I negate.