Evolution should be taught in public schools

"And you know this how? I know many people who do have problems with evolution being taught that are not well known or powerful." The people who have problems with evolution that you can name are probably people who have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever. Laymen to science who only know tha evolution "contradicts" their religion and thus, they must fight against it ignorantly and whole-heartedly. I don't really count those people. The people I count are the ones actively using science and scientific thought to generate anti-evolution propaganda, and these are the people who are powerful. In short, I'm talking about the shepherds, not the sheep. "I would like to know who is it that is so powerful and outspoken that speaks about evolution." Strawman fallacy. I never indicated that there were powerful and outspoken people who speak about evolution. Evolution is a scientific principle that scientists use in order to advance science. Whether or not laypersons accept it is of no significance, so the scientific community has no need to promulgate evolution as if though they were rpesidential candidates campaigning for a platform. So no, those who support evolution are neither politically active nor outspoken, because they don't need to be. "If schools taught every theory in the scientific world that was well-tested, wouldn't things be a bit confusing for children?" They only teach the really important ones, and evolution is key to Biology. And eys, currently, schools/universities only teach well-tested theories in science classes. "So by saying this, you mean that someone with a higher level education than you(as is someone with a doctorate) is unfit to teach because they do not support evolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a silly prejudice remark about someone." You asked me to correct you if you were wrong. I'm correcting you now. You're wrong. Another strawman fallacy. If you have to ask what I meant, chances are, there's a misunderstanding, and you should ask me to clarify. I shall now clarify. I am saying that Biologists who do not believe in evolution are not fit to teach Biology, because it shows that they cannot grasp the concepts necessary to do so. Evolution is so key to Bio9logy that rejecting it is akin to rejecting the entire field. "But while we learn about other religions in history class, we are not taught to believe in them as we are with the theory of evolution." That's the way it should be. That's because no religion is more accurate or "better" than another. In history, we go over them as what they were, parts of culture. Evolution is not even remotely similar to a religious belief, because it is an accurate description and explanation for the workings of Biology. "Nobody can say evolution is a fact, as it isn't comfermed that it is positively true, while the fact that people PRACTICE religion is true, and therefore, a fact that should be taught. Teaching that there are other religions is not identical to teaching as if it is truth, the theory of evolution." Again, I must repeat, academia is not limited to just FACTS. They include theories, which are supported by a great number of facts. Evolutionary theory is supported by mounds of evidence, though not yet a fact. This is why it is labeled a "theory". And theories are valid to teach so that people can expand on them. Evolution, as I have said ebfore, is key in explaining many biological principles that would take me several debates to explain to you even if you *weren't* a fundamentalist theist. "Is this to say that I, and anyone else that strongly believes in God and is against the theory of evolution is a ‘religious nut'? If so, I'm proud to be one, but I don't see how placing labels like these are relevant to the topic at hand, and I do not see how they are appropriate." Again, you're wrong. If you have to ask about my point, it means there might be a misconception and you should ask me to clarify instead of assuming that I will answer in a particular way. People who believe strongly in God are pious. People who speak out against valid scientific principles due only to their piety are ignorant (used as a neutral phrase meaning "at a lack of information, not as an insult). People who do so for a living in order to rally similarly ignorant support are religious nuts. Examples of religious nuts are Kent Hovind and the Discovery Institute. "Theory- 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Evolution is merely a proposed explanation." I very much appreciate how you deliberately chose the second definition, which happens to support your point over the first one, which is the valid one and happens to harm it. I find this to be a dishonest tactic that illustrates the inherent and unfounded bias that theists hold against evolution. The fact remains that the first definiton is the valid one, and the Theory of Evolution fits it. Religious beliefs do not. "Sure, religion may not be based on scientific facts, but why does everything in this world have to be proven with science? Science is something made up by man-kind, and life is not made by man-kind, so why do we attempt to explain it with our systems when we are only ones to wonder at the amazing living things in the world we live, taking no part in creation? How can you define something that is beyond your own definitions?" I can debate this point from a philosophical perspective instead of a scientific one, but it is beyond the scope of this debate. The debate is on whether Evolutionary theory is appropriate to teach in schools. Your concern in this final argument is whether science is a good measure of truth to begin with. If I were to concede the point and allow you to draw this argument to its valid conclusion, we would have to ban all science from all schools. Hence, your final statement is completely irrelevant to this debate. *** My opponent, although having responded to many of my points, did not respond to all of them. Thus, he concedes all the points which he did not address. I have responded to all of his points, but have yet to see him make a valid argument as to why Evolution should NOT be taught. The only argument my opponent had for not teaching evolution is schools, is that it is a theory and not a fact. I have dispelled this myth before and will do so to clarify. My nopponent, being a layperson to the scientific field, confuses the term "theory" with "scientific theory". Evolution is a valid scientific theory because it is an accurate depiction and explanation of observed phenomena, supported by evidence. Thus, it is valid to teach in the school setting. *** If this is the only point you have, then there is nothing more to debate. Any other point you have made so far is irrelevant. Please state further explanations as to why you believe Evolution is not valid to teach in schools.