Creationism Should be Taught in Schools

I am arguing against teaching creationism in schools. My text from here on out will be in bold whereas my opponent's will be in regular text. -- Today I will be arguing for the cause of Creationism being taught in schools. Firstly, I would like to quote Patrick Henry, a proud Founding Father and a true Patriot, best known for his saying "Give me Liberty, or give me Death! " but had many other very interesting things to say. He stated that "It can not be emphasized too much or too often that this nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. " An interesting thing to recollect, when we have children in schools believing that our Founders really weren't all that Christian, and furthermore aren't taught the idea of Creationism at all. Which in essence is propaganda, is it not? Propaganda is defined as strictly one-sided information, with the intent of not letting the audience know about the other side of the debate. Therefore, if we only teach our children Darwinism, isn't that propaganda? My opponent is misrepresenting the definiton of propaganda here. My opponent contends that teaching Darwinism only is propaganda, however, fails to realize that creationism has been taught in schools in the past. The teaching has been removed because it has been proven faulty. Therefore, such arguments are indeed null and void. Darwinism is a religion as much as Islam, and Christianity, and Buddhism, and the rest; in fact Webster's Dictionary defines it as "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. " And while Darwinists will tell you how they have proof, they have no more proof than any of us have. Evolution? Exists. Evolution to the point that our ancestors are bacteria? A far-out theory. That doesn't mean it can't be taught, but who could say it should be the only thing we teach? Darwinism is not a religion because a religion is based on faith by definition. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof. " Darwinism has support, which supporters take as proof. To one, it may not be proof, however, to the supporters, it is proof. Therefore, it is not a religion. And as Patrick Henry reminds us, this nation was founded upon Christian principles. You don't have to like it, but it was. Censoring history we don't find popular and all-appealing isn't appropriate or right. We have a secular government, but not founded by secular men. I might also mention that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does say that all men have the Freedom of Religion. Note it says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. You don't have the right to live a life without religious influence, and you aren't ever going to. This nation was founded on principles of equality just as much as religion. So let's all just look at the facts and mutually understand that omitting religion from schools is wrong and single-minded. Where is the power invested in any of us to not tell anyone, especially children, the whole truth? It doesn't exist, and never will. Thank you. S ----I must protest, however, the first contention made by my opposition. He stated that "Darwin's theory has been continuously proven, whereas Intelligent Design has a lack of evidence supporting it. " This is, contradictory to common belief, not true. I find it appropriate to start out here by defining the word "faith. " Webster's dictionary defines it as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," which Darwin's theory, again, does not have. Although my opposition has presented very convincing fossil evidence among other things, none of this is proof. Proof is absolute, indisputable facts; but Darwinism's foundation is assumptions based on fossil evidence. Creationism has evidence that is just about as convincing: The Holy Bible for example. It is not one book, but as many as 73 different books compiled into the same text. 73 different accounts, some thousands of years apart, many written by different people; and they all say the exact same thing. Words are just words; stories are just stories. Basing the faith of our youth based on the writings of 73 different books, which were influenced by each other and the thought at the time, is not logical. Based on the same logic, the earth is flat because the scholars of the 16th century contended it to be. Now this sounds like science. Science, as Webster tells us again, is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. " Now does the Bible not let us "know" more and lead us away from "ignorance or misunderstanding," even to atheists? It may not be true, but it teaches us all something, even if it's only that Jesus was a liar. So I would argue that Creationism is absolutely science. I have henceforth answered all of my opponent's first contention, except for "[Proving] that ID has been proven over the years and also must disprove the [rest of his first contention]. " I will not do so because it is not possible to prove a faith or disprove Darwin (also a faith). It is also impossible to prove that Darwin's theory has been proven over the years and disprove ID. . http://video.pbs.org...And in response to my opponent's Contention Two, Intelligent Design for the purposes of this argument is just that: Intelligent Design. The idea that a higher being created all of us is not broad, it just has many different takes on it. These, however, do not neccesarily all have to be discussed to teach the broader idea of Intelligent Design. 'Broad' and 'too many takes' are two practically synonymous phrases. As far as the founding of our nation, I find it a mistake for any opposer of Creationism being included in the education system to mention it. The founders were all strong Christians, and at the time Creationism wasn't mentioned in schools--It was all they used to teach how to read and write. The founders were also people who called for equality, separation of church and state, and fair treatment. The New England Primer is a perfect example. There is a Biblical reference for every letter of the alphabet, Biblical questions, etc. There is not a page that does not have a reference to God. The separation of church and state was intended to be applied to the government, not the schools. There was not a federally run school system in those days. Also, I find it a mistake to mention the "equal protection for all religions, and freedom of speech. " By teaching all religions instead of just Darwinism, we are protecting all of them; and the freedom of speech is completely irrelevant. I would ask for an explanation of its reference by my opposition in the next round for clarification purposes. With the goal of the education system to educate our youth, will they really learn anything if they are spending every day on a different subject? Continuity is key. I am not sure what to say in response to the B section of the second contention made by my opponent. No one, not even the creators of the Pasta Church, believed it or wanted it taught. It was not a major religion, and therefore not worthy of being added to a classroom. I am speaking on behalf of the idea of Creationism, not individual religions. If individual religions are to be brought into play, then only major religions ought be factored. I thought that would be easy enough to understand, and I am sorry for any misunderstanding of that apparently unapparent definition. Please define "major religion" and give examples how we can measure that. It is because I support the right of all religions to be taught, not just one (Darwinism), that I support creationism being taught in our schools. Not doing so is definably propaganda, and morally wrong. I implore the voters to provide a pro vote in the name of the Constitution. ---Since my opponent has failed to meet the BoP requirements of his side, all categories should be given to con.