Public schools schould teach Creationism.

First, I'm going to contest my opponent's counter-analysis of the word teach. They assert that in order to meet the full definition of the word, we have to 'Impart knowledge of *OR* skill in ; give instruction in'. They go on to CHANGE the definition to 'To impart knowledge of *AND* skill in ; give instruction in'. I CAN select which one in this sense that teach is referring to, as it says OR, not AND. As far as to give instruction in, yes. We are educating what creationism is. We teach them how to analyze the idea, in order to better understand past societies. Again, I do NOT have to meet the idea of teaching a skill. This is an OR definition ; my opponent should have provided a better definition if they didn't want to play by this one. On to my opponents rebuttals -Contention 1- My opponent says that it must be taught as FACT. Is that why we teach philosophies in psychology as fact? Or political views as fact? Or religious studies as fact? The answer is NO. This is just a false assertion. My opponent further says that if I think it's important to teach creationism, shouldn't I also be concerned with teaching the world was flat? Because arguing for the teaching in a historical sense of people thinking the world is flat is ATOPICAL. This is IRRELEVANT to the current debate and should be ignored. Further, he says there's evidence against it. That's GOOD. This supports the idea that not everyone in history has had ideas that were RIGHT. We still teach that medicine men would bleed out the sick in order to remove tainted blood. This is FACT. The part that is WRONG is that tainted blood isn't the cause of all illness, and bleeding out doesn't assist in this. In addition, he talks about holocaust denial as a theory, and etc. These are no where near as relevant as something that existed and was vital to society for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. He also mentions the geocentric theory ; We do teach about it. High school teachers teach about Copernicus and Galileo. Geocentric Theory is TAUGHT in order to provide for better comprehension. We provide their reasons because it assists in knowledge ; SCHOOLS NEED NOT ASSERT IT AS FACT. ONLY THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED FACT. -Contention 2- My opponent basically claims that it's atypical. This is wrong. Because we can use past examples of BAD EVIDENCE or LACK OF EVIDENCE, it helps form a more modern way of thinking. Yes, a lot of people in this world DO hold creationist beliefs today ; I'm not debating to protect peoples' feelings. I'm here to present the facts and reasons. This contention stands as other than making a false assertion of atopicality, he only goes on to say that it has nothing to do with the scientific method ; okay? It still serves as an EXAMPLE of BAD EVIDENCE OR LACK OF EVIDENCE being used to ASSERT something as FACT. On to my opponent's case 1 Creationism vs Evolution My opponent asserts that this is contention is basic. Because he provides NOTHING to argue against, I'll use what I'm assuming is his argument. He automatically assumes that we can only teach ONE or THE OTHER. We can teach one for better understand, ie, creationism, and the other as fact, ie, evolution. These are powerful tools when used TOGETHER, in teaching both SCIENCE and HISTORY. This argument falls ; Schools need not teach one or the other ; it's best to teach BOTH in PROPER CONTEXT. 2. Separation of Church and State My opponent basically is arguing against teaching creationism because there's so many types of creationism from different cultures. This is IRRELEVANT. When talking about Europe in history, we refer to CATHOLICISM and PROTESTANTISM, because these were CULTURALLY RELEVANT of the time. As far as for a science perspective, my opponent once again ASSERTS we must PICK which CREATION STORY we teach. This is, again, false. We can teach the IDEA OF CREATIONISM without teaching the STORIES OF IT. We can teach it as it has been shown throughout history. Basically, the easiest way to destroy this argument is to ACKNOWLEDGE that we do NOT need to teach it as FACT. This EDUCATION of creationism doesn't infringe on separation of church and state ; It's necessary to be taught in history classes to understand historic actions, from the crusaders, the the witch hunt trials, to the Spanish Inquisition. These are VITAL to understand the reasons of the culture. Again, we are NOT arguing that this is teaching it as FACT. Only imparting someone with knowledge. I've shown that this knowledge is demanded to understand history, and is supplementary to understanding the scientific method. He asserts that in order to have a viable field for academia, religious doctrine must stay out ; I've shown that the OPPOSITE is true. That we must teach SOME doctrines that are RELEVANT TO HISTORY and SUPPLEMENTARY to science. To make children aware of their society, their history, and of how people learn today, it is VITAL TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST.