The teaching of creationism in public schools in the US is justifiable

"To begin, your thesis, while technically a valid point, does not quite fit within the parameters of this debate. The reason I say that is that we're not debating evolution. " - Clearly, but I am not attempting to debate evolution. I used evolution as a means to justify why creationism should be taught in my thesis and there isn't anything irrelevant about it. I am not debating the teaching of evolution, just building upon that. "In the context of Evolution, a theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. While creationism does explain a phenomenon, it is not really plausible or scientifically acceptable. " - I already semi-addressed this. Anything outside of "I think, therefore I am," is technically accepted. That's right, even things bordering on fact like gravity are accepted and not completely proven. Of course, there's nothing wrong with accepting these theories as fact because almost everyone else does without even thinking about it. Con states that nearly all scientists reject creationism but we cannot exclude it from our education just because of that. The Gallup poll shows the audience how people think on this issue. Clearly, creationism is still relevant and many people believe in it. Con says I could attempt to argue that "some" believe in it but it is far more than "some. " Referring back to the chart, a whopping 44% believe that God created man in present form compared to a 14% believing that God had no part in the process. "If you wanted to know what the best technique is to brush your teeth, would you be better off taking a poll of all your neighbors, or going to a few dentist's offices and asking them? Of course you would get a better answer from dentists. It's the same idea with creationism. You could ask a bunch of random Americans who have probably never studied the matter, or you could talk to those who have studied it extensively. " - This is true but it's not a proper analogy. We can test the effectiveness of different tooth brushing techniques in an experiment while we cannot truly test the validity of creationism nor evolution. Furthermore, brushing one's teeth is far less trivial and objective than personal belief. There is less variation in the way one brushes their teeth compared to how one personally believes. "Are you familiar with Bobby Henderson or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? " - See "extreme irrelevance. " "While a plurality of Americans do believe in creation, I would like to repeat the point that virtually all scientists reject creation as a legitimate theory, and that's what matters. " - But we're not teaching scientists, are we? It wouldn't hurt to cover the scientifically accepted theory and the popularly accepted theory because it gives students a bigger range to juxtapose when it comes to establishing their own beliefs. "When teaching something as science, it's generally a bad idea to teach something that essentially all related scientists believe to be false. " - I see what you're saying but the resolution is about justification. Scientists find evolution to be correct, schools teach it, it is justified. People find creationism to be correct. .. follow where I'm going? Going back to what I just said, it doesn't hurt to provide a large spectrum to think across. In fact, all that does is help because it will probably make young minds more flexible. I conclude my rebuttal for this round.