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

First of all, evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about the changing of life. Maybe some guy from space made life on earth. After that, however, evolution happened. None of them has been proven to be true yet, but all of them are possible, so why only teach students ONE of the theories when you don't know which one is true? That’s just not true. Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the only explanation for the various data that has been found. It is the only idea that has predicted successfully every single time it has been tested. Example: endogenous retroviruses. When you get a virus, sometimes that virus will replace a bit of your DNA with its own. It’s almost always just a piece of your DNA that did nothing, so it doesn’t affect you, generally. However, since it’s now a part of your DNA, if you have children, you will be able to detect the same viral pattern in their DNA. So, if I made the assumption that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and predicted that we would have the more of the same viral DNA in the same places than, say, humans and rats, I would be able to test that theory. When you look at the DNA of humans, chimpanzees, and rats, you will find that those predictions are 100% verified. If life on earth was created as it is now, then you would expect that the viral patterns in DNA across the species were random and not linkable between different species. That is the opposite of what we find. In fact, you can even go down the phylogenetic tree and choose any three species. The ones that are closest to each other will share more viral DNA than ones that are farther apart. The probability that this happened by chance is just astronomically slim. Keep in mind that creationism is not religious This is what they say, but I don’t believe it. How do you say life was created if you’re not saying it was created by some religious entity? I’m challenging you because I believe that you’re the one who’s mistaken. It’s telling that there are no creationists who aren’t religious. HOWEVER, I can argue from the position that creationism is not religious, if you like. But, don’t think that that means I won’t say that creationism isn’t science. That’s the crux of my argument. That creationism is not science. Science makes testable, falsifiable, predictions and then follows through with testing those predictions. Creationism makes no predictions, and certainly not falsifiable ones. It just makes assumptions. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s religious, it’s just not science. Evolution argues that a species results from nonrandom selection of random mutations. If moths are darker, the birds are less likely to eat them when they’re on darkly colored trees. If you’re a moth and you’re 0.5% darker than your friend, you’re 0.5% more likely to survive. If you do survive, you’re many times more likely to mate and pass that genetic mutation on to your children. Lots of little changes overtime eventually make it so your offspring after 1000 generations looks nothing like you at all. Creationism argues that “nuh huh”. A scientific theory cannot be one that just disagrees with another one. You have to actually present something. If there is a theory better than evolution, it should be submitted for peer review. But it’s not. It never is. Creationists cry conspiracy, but I’ve never even heard of a creationist paper submitted to a biological journal. Kent Hovind says “peer reviewed, yeah but whose peers?” which might be a valid claim, but … where are the papers that were rejected? They were never submitted. You can’t claim conspiracy when there’s no attempt on your part to get the idea into the scientific arena in the first place. I look forward to this debate.