Creationism (the basic idea of it) Should be Taught in Schools Alongside Evolution

“My question still stands. Why can't other theories be taught in school?” I apologize. I should have been clearer. "Alternative" theories (read: unproven theories) should not be taught alongside evolution because they're not science. If you should find/develop a scientific theory that describes the observations and makes predictions better than evolution, by all means, that one should be taught in tandem or instead of evolution. Until that point, however, it would be nonsense to teach it. "...it cannot explain many things and is flawed." I'll respond to that with one of my favorite quotes about science. "All models are wrong. Some models are useful" - George Box It doesn't matter if it fails to explain a thing. We do the best we can until there's something better, then we do better. Science is an unstoppable march of human knowledge. If you can explain something better than evolution, I invite you to submit a paper on it. "For an example, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, there should be many transitional forms found in the fossil record. However none are found as of yet, though there was one particular fossil, the Archaeopteryx, that people thought was a transitional form. But soon after they changed their minds. One could argue that the fossil record isn't complete and that we've not found all the fossils, but for now Darwin's theory hasn't been proven yet." One could also argue that this statement is a prime example for why not to "teach" the "controversy". There is NO controversy in the scientific community. There is NO debate. Con said that he/she attended a school that was open-minded and was taught ‘common’ theories and allowed to decide for himself/herself. Creationism is not a ‘common’ theory in the scientific community. It’s a ridiculous theory with no meat and no evidence. There are no transitional fossils? Con has been lied to by his/her "open-minded" teacher. https://en.wikipedia.org...... That list is only tentative and not anywhere NEAR exhaustive. Transitional fossils are found all the time. I have personally witnessed an argument of whether a fossil was more amphibian or more amniotic (pre-reptile). It really makes me sad. Con has been robbed of an actual biology education because his/her state has decided that creation 'science' is on par with evolution. It's a tragedy of science education. There is no evidence of creationism; in fact there is evidence AGAINST (young-earth [once again, that should have been mentioned]) creationism; endogenous retroviruses. "I don't see how this supports the theory of evolution" The theory of evolution is the theory of the development of life on earth over millions of years through means of spontaneous genetic mutation and natural selection. It is the theory that speciation happens from natural selection. Therefore, if I can show that we share offspring-style DNA with another species, it would validate the theory of evolution because that means at one point, there were no humans and chimps, but a common ancestor that divided into both humans and chimps. "OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS ARE NOT RELIGIOUS AND THEY DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION." First of all, if Con is going to qualify which type of creationist he/she is, Con should have done it when he/she started the debate, not halfway into it. If Con’s definition of creationism allows evolution to be true, why is Con arguing that they should be taught alongside each other? If it doesn't contradict evolution, why is Con making arguments against the veracity of evolution? If it doesn't contradict evolution, then the debate should be titled "Creationism Should be Taught". The creationist argument (assuming old-earth creationism) is "it was magic". Once again there is not a drop of scientific evidence for it. Since there is no evidence, it should not be taught in the classroom. Do you believe in God? This is a relevant question. They all say it's not religious, but they're all religious. It's very convenient. If it is religious (if I can show that it is), then that's yet another reason why it shouldn't be taught in schools. Bullet points of this round: 1. If Con (the instigator) doesn't think evolution is false; Con's debate shouldn't have anything to do with evolution. 2. Con should have mentioned which type of creationist would be the subject of the debate. 3. There is no evidence for old-earth creationism. 4. Old-earth creationism is not science. It makes neither predictions nor falsifiable claims. 5. There is evidence for evolution. There are transitional fossils. 6. Creationism is religious. And 7. Religious, unproven, non-science should not be taught in school, let alone in a science classroom.