Biological Theory of Evolution Should Be Taught in All Public Schools

My entire argument is based on one principle, theories should be taught as theories and facts should be taught as fact. I am a creationist and happen to believe God as a "fact." However, if we base our argument on Pro's given definition, then I can not say that God/creationism is a fact. Thankfully, Pro has accepted that we are merely discussing Biological Evolution as a well-regarded theory. I also do not disagree with micro evolution as it is a observable repeatable fact. I simply do not hold Macro evolution to be fact. I am okay with the theory of Biological Evolution being taught in Public schools as a theory, but not as fact. Same with intelligent design. Both these theories should be taught as philosophies with scientific support, not as science with philosophical implications. If the latter is done, then teachers will simply point at whatever science they find reliable and ignore the rest. The student should be given the opportunity to do some personal study and make a self-educated choice in the sphere. That being said, Pro makes a good point about theories. In his list of examples he shows that sometimes unproven theories are best regarded as fact, for the sake of education. I agree there, except for one principle. Students must be encouraged to learn more on their own. Students should be taught that "gravity is a mere theory, and if that bothers you seek to disprove it." Same with Biological evolution. This is how we "evolve" as an educated society. Students should not be taught to just accept everything their teacher states, and seek to find out information for themselves. This is when scientific discoveries happen. Biological evolution could easily be a theory that students' would never seek to contest. Since my opponent agrees that, "For sake of argument, lets accept Evolution as theory but not fact." I will now state my problems with a couple of my opponent's statements. "The theory is accepted by virtually all scientists in relevant fields such as biology and genetics, archaeology, palaeontology, geology, etc."This statement is ignorant and is a very hasty generalisation. "Virtually all?" (http://www.creationbiology.org...)(http://creation.com...)(http://creation.com...)(http://creation.com...)(http://hernanmuscio.tripod.com...)(http://chalcedon.edu...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)Whether you agree with the above resources or not, you have made a sweeping and bold statement that is simply inaccurate. You are incorrect. "Virtually all" of scientists have their own unique view and there are varying scientific theories about the origin of life. Now one can argue that creationism and Biological evolution do not have to be held in tension because Biological evolution does not have to do with how the world began, but rather how the world operates. I hope my opponent would accept this statement. Evolution and the Big Bang theories are separate theories.In regards to this theory being taught in public school (assuming that this means before college) there arises a problem. Since there are no experiments that can show one species becoming another, there cannot be any hands-on teaching about this theory (yet you can drop a ball and talk about the theory of gravity). This does not dismiss the theory of evolution but does mean it would be harder to teach, especially to younger ages. Another problem that arises is one that my opponent brought up in the first round. Students that hold to a religion that conflicts with the theory of evolution will not be comfortable submitting to the theory if it is taught as fact or 98% chance true. Again, it is the responsibility of the student to choose what to believe, however we all know that in public schools the "different" kids get bullied and made fun of. Adolescents who have these beliefs should not be disqualified, or be treated differently. (https://answers.ed.gov...)I am okay with Biological Evolution being taught as a theory in public schools. If that is all my opponent wishes me to say then I suppose we have tied this debate because I do not have a disagreement with him. I just want that theory to be given no more bias then creationism or even a physicalist view (http://www.debate.org...) I will conclude with my biggest problems with Biological Evolution and a summary statement in the third round.