Evolution should be taught in public schools

"It is the same as saying a Social Studies teacher..." Incorrect. A more fitting example would be a History teacher who does not believe the Holocaust. Such a person could only harbor a belief if he was blind to all historical evidence, such as how a Biologist who does not believe in Evolution can only be that way if he is blind to all scientific evidence. "My words first began with ‘Is this to say..'. That is clearing up a point, and giving you an opportunity to answer/change my assumption. You also did not answer my question. (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'?) This either means you do not know what you are talking about, or forgot." That's exactly my point. I can't correct you while you're typing. Don't include an answer to your own question directed to me in the same reply. And I did answer your question. For ease, I shall now quote myself. "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." Going by the definition I gave you, you are more than capable of deciding whether or not you qualify as one of the "religious nuts" I defined. "In the definitions I posted(from dictionary.com), both are true. I am allowed to post one that supports my point if both are true, so I do not see how you find this a dishonest tactic." In that case, my point still dominates. The latter is not the correct definition of a scientific theory, rather, it is the vernacular definition of a theory. Your point is then invalid. " To clarify, by evolution I include the theory that organisms grow and adapt to their surroundings AND the big bang theory(how the universe was created). My two disagreements with the topic are:" I find it annoying that you are only bringing up your arguments now. I waited for them for quite a while. And by the way, evolution and big bang are not even remotely related. To group them together is a typical creationist habit. Please don't do that. "--Evolution is not sure to have happened, so we may be teaching lies --What would happen if science figured that the theory of evolution was not true? All things we've based off of it would be untrue, and we would begin at the beginning." Predictable argument. This is the one I have already defeated. Since Evolution is a scientific theory supported by a vast amount of evidence, it qualifies as something that is acceptable to teach. Remember the difference between the word "theory" as laypersons like yourself would use it and the word "theory" as the scientific community would use it. "--Evolution states that animals have changed over time. How do we know our method of dating the earth's rocks and fossils is correct?" The same way we tell that there are 365 or so days before the earth makes a complete revolution around the sun. Mathematical computations combined with observed phenomena and the laws of physics. Half-life determinations and geological evidence, combined with our knowledge of radioactivity and atom behavior validate our methods of dating. "We were not around when the world formed and we were not around when most of the fossils and rocks we are studying formed. How do we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old? The Bible states that the earth and most galaxies are only 6,007 yrs old." Science and mathematics allows us to understand the principles of the world without ever having to witness them. In addition, we can infer how certain events of the past occurred with evidence from the present. "--As you may disagree that the bible is not a textbook, and therefore is not a relevant source for information, I agree. Thank God it is not because textbooks always have mistakes and go out-of-date in a few years. The Bible has no errors and is always current and up-to-date." There are also no errors in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". However, when you clash science with that book, it falls to pieces. Same with the Bible. The Bible is only infallible in the universe of the Bible. "--Evolution is not believed by all, and nonbelievers should not have to" Then they fail Biology class. They may pass History and all that, but they would fail Biology, and deserve to fail Biology. "--Would you like to go somewhere where people made you doubt all that you were taught and believed it?" Humans should question their beliefs continuously. It's called "learning". "--Evolution may be an important concept to understand when it comes to Biology, but shouldn't children then get the choice to learn this?" With what credentials? Children should be taught the essentials of science. Letting them off the hook with evolution means they can choose not to learn anything. "do you simply agree that children/children's parents(depending on their age) should be allowed the choice on whether or not they wish to be taught the theory of evolution, as it is with other things, such as certain parts of health?" Health education is mandated where I am. And the theory of evolution is taught at around the same age. High school. "It is teaching the students that evolution did in fact occur. No one can be positive that the theory is true, as it is simply a theory." I would have thought that my continuous debunking of your "just a theory" argument would get you to stop. Obviously, I was wrong. I will repeat once more: Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Scientific theories differ from common theories in that they are supported with enormous amounts of evidence and are accepted as truth. This renders your argument of "just a theory" null and void. "My opponent replies that I have failed to rebut many of his comments, but I beg to differ. On the contrary, he has failed to rebut several of my questions directly, merely skipped around the questions and criticized the way I asked it." An answer that you cannot understand or are unwilling to accept based on your faith is not a flaw on my part. The fact that you asked a question incorrectly shows just that. You won't expect me to answer "yes" or "no" to a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" do you? If there is a flaw in your question, I'll point it out. "From these facts, I will conclude that he doesn't know the answers." Not a sound conclusion. Of course, this is typical of creationists because it aligns with their culture. In the face of scientific evidence that threatens your faith, disregard all but your faith. The exact same tactic being used right now. "Furthermore, I believe that this shows that evolution has many weak points and unknowns and my opponent is not fit to be debating on whether or not evolution should be taught in schools if he cannot answer the questions directly." You are aware that you have not asked any questions about evolution, right? You've only asked me to justify in a socio-political sense why evolution is a valid thing to teach. This makes your argument here an example of the strawman fallacy, rendering it useless. "Voters, and others; when you vote, consider whether or not you would want to be taught something, or your children taught something, that you yourself did not believe. Would you want others to insist that this theory was true, and tear down the beliefs that you so strongly had faith in?" No one wants to be told what to believe. This is why so many devote their lives to scientific study, they get to find the truth for themselves. For those in pursuit of the truth to better mankind, we must cast aside the veils that society has placed on us. The wise man is the one who knows he does not know, and science is the constant pursuit of what we do not know. To forfeit science for religion is to layer the veils on your head. After all, ignorance truly is bliss.