Creationism Should be Taught in Schools

I must protest, however, the first contention made by my opposition. He stated that "Darwin's theory has been continuously proven, whereas Intelligent Design has a lack of evidence supporting it. " This is, contradictory to common belief, not true. I find it appropriate to start out here by defining the word "faith. " Webster's dictionary defines it as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," which Darwin's theory, again, does not have. Although my opposition has presented very convincing fossil evidence among other things, none of this is proof. Proof is absolute, indisputable facts; but Darwinism's foundation is assumptions based on fossil evidence. Creationism has evidence that is just about as convincing: The Holy Bible for example. It is not one book, but as many as 73 different books compiled into the same text. 73 different accounts, some thousands of years apart, many written by different people; and they all say the exact same thing. Now this sounds like science. Science, as Webster tells us again, is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. " Now does the Bible not let us "know" more and lead us away from "ignorance or misunderstanding," even to atheists? It may not be true, but it teaches us all something, even if it's only that Jesus was a liar. So I would argue that Creationism is absolutely science. I have henceforth answered all of my opponent's first contention, except for "[Proving] that ID has been proven over the years and also must disprove the [rest of his first contention]. " I will not do so because it is not possible to prove a faith or disprove Darwin (also a faith). It is also impossible to prove that Darwin's theory has been proven over the years and disprove ID. And in response to my opponent's Contention Two, Intelligent Design for the purposes of this argument is just that: Intelligent Design. The idea that a higher being created all of us is not broad, it just has many different takes on it. These, however, do not neccesarily all have to be discussed to teach the broader idea of Intelligent Design. As far as the founding of our nation, I find it a mistake for any opposer of Creationism being included in the education system to mention it. The founders were all strong Christians, and at the time Creationism wasn't mentioned in schools--It was all they used to teach how to read and write. The New England Primer is a perfect example. There is a Biblical reference for every letter of the alphabet, Biblical questions, etc. There is not a page that does not have a reference to God. The separation of church and state was intended to be applied to the government, not the schools. There was not a federally run school system in those days. Also, I find it a mistake to mention the "equal protection for all religions, and freedom of speech. " By teaching all religions instead of just Darwinism, we are protecting all of them; and the freedom of speech is completely irrelevant. I would ask for an explanation of its reference by my opposition in the next round for clarification purposes. I am not sure what to say in response to the B section of the second contention made by my opponent. No one, not even the creators of the Pasta Church, believed it or wanted it taught. It was not a major religion, and therefore not worthy of being added to a classroom. I am speaking on behalf of the idea of Creationism, not individual religions. If individual religions are to be brought into play, then only major religions ought be factored. I thought that would be easy enough to understand, and I am sorry for any misunderstanding of that apparently unapparent definition. It is because I support the right of all religions to be taught, not just one (Darwinism), that I support creationism being taught in our schools. Not doing so is definably propaganda, and morally wrong. I implore the voters to provide a pro vote in the name of the Constitution.