Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution as an equally valid idea.

First of all, Radiometric dating methods are very inaccurate past about 10, thousand years, and for many reasons, a few of the bigger ones I stated in my opening argument. As for the fossil record in general, it, like most "evidences" for evolution can be interpreted in many ways. Scientists first denied the Bible's claim that there must have been a flood, then they discovered that there undoubtedly was one, but it must have been 65 million years ago. Why? Because if they say it happened 6 thousand years ago, their faces would turn even redder. These same scientists, however, ignore the very effects that this flood would have had upon our geological and fossil records. Let me pause to say that what I am trying to show you is that Evolution is just as much based on assumptions and personal beliefs as is creationism, and that our schools are biased by favoring one as science that should be taught as if we are certain, and the other as specualation which has no place even being offered as an alternative, when both are technically speculation. "There exists in the fossil record a progression of lifeforms from the more simple to the more complex. These lifeforms are easily classed with other similar life forms, humans with humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, each with different and more general traits in common" This entire statement is an assumption. There is a large variety of life-forms, we line them up shortest to tallest, and presumed oldest to youngest and say "see...evolution" Then there are alot of problems with old earth theory, and the time gaps needed for evolution to work, if it could work at all, but I think OldEarth/Young Earth is it's own debate, and not necessary to make my point here. Although, to be totally fair and objective, I would also say that if we could prove our earth were 65 million years old, this only would mean that Genesis 1 is a myth. This does not mean there is no creator, in fact, there is still the question of what happened 65million years ago to start us? Look at the odds really. Physics tells us that the universe is not infinite. There was nothing, then there all of a sudden became something, and all of that something became alot more something, and somewhere in that something, just by chance, a little rock found a perfect orbit around a perfectly sized star, and on that little rock came to be the perfect conditions for life to come from...non-life? Even if you say they came from outer space, the point is life had to begin somewhere, and is it more logical to assume that it was totally random, or that something specific caused it. Do some reading in biology. You are a perfect system of systems that all work together. Without a doubt, the human body is a work of art. The heavens are a work of art. The fact that we appreciate art is something that leaves you to wonder, "why do we feel?" We dont need feelings to survive. We dont need love, or an appreciation for art and music. We evolved this characteristics? Is it possible...arguably, is it likely? I think not... "Every species is kept in check by a number of natural forces: ability to find food, ability to find mate, avoiding being eaten, success of offspring. It must also be that within a given species some "monstrosity" (as Darwin called mutations), might give one of the organisms within the species a slight edge, which, over time would propagate throughout the species until every species had that edge. " Wow...sounds like a design to me. I am not questioning natural selection, just the way in which it is applied. Haven't you read my opening argument at all, or just the heading? Let me skip to the point. You are looking at evidence, drawing your own opinions about the evidence, and then saying "my opinions are right to me, so they are right and yours are wrong so lets go with mine and yours needs to stay as far away as possible". Why should a Christian have to go to a private school to be a Christian? That is not equality or tolerance, neither is it to say that the boy scouts should change their pledge, or that we should remove God's name from the dollar bill. The fact is, 90 percent of the world acknowledges the probable existance of a creator, so why should the 10 percent who are opposed to this idea be treated special? WHy do we teach things in school that are not proven facts, and then whenever the books are proven wrong, "It's science correcting its'self". The people who thought the world was flat were wrong, and yet the Old Testament refers to the world as a sphere, not as flat or square . People thought the earth was the center of the universe, and a Christian proved them wrong. "Evolution has paid it's scientific views" Lol...no, evilution is just widely accepted in the scientific community. I am sure they are sincire, just sincirely arrogant and wrong. Amd let me say this one more time...even if evolution is proven to be absolutely true, this only means that life is even more complex than we thought and it is even less likely that we are an accident, but rather we are all part of a design. My statement was that creationism should be taught as an equally valid idea, and all you said was "nu uh, no its not" and stated some of your beliefs as an evolutionist. This does not prove anything, nor does it give any good reason why creationism should not be taught right alongside evolution...other than the fact that evolution and atheism go hand in hand, whether you admit it or not.