Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

Three reasons why biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution. .. a. Creationism fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better). The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils. But this can easily give evidence for a common designer. The "clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc" (. http://www.christcreated.com.........). Evolutionists are always bringing up the fact the chimpanzees and humans share common DNA and then make the assumption that they have a common ancestor. But it is also obvious that this could also mean that they were both created by the same designer. b. Creationism teaches people that we have a purpose in life. And without a creator, there is no purpose in life (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). There would be no point to cure or help people since it wouldn't achieve anything. All people would just die and we would be no better than the animals. So I think it is better for people to be taught that they do have an actual purpose instead of what evolution teaches us. Evolution teaches that humans aren't special beings created in the image of a God. Instead it teaches that we evolved from earlier animals and are just as without purpose as they are. My question is as follows: why teach children something like this when it is all conjecture? It is quite possible that instead of a common ancestor, there is a common designer. So therefore since both are equally possible it seems logical to teach both points of view. c. Creationism does a better job accounting for the existence of morality. Without a God, there can be no objective moral code. According to evolution, morality is just some instinct (. http://www.theatlantic.com...). But this is just not true. The problem with this argument is that morality is the thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. That said, if my opponent claims that his "moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better? (. https://carm.org...). And if my opponent claims that his moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that things are getting better because they are evolving? (same link just mentioned). Since evolution cannot explain the existence of objective morality (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...), and since creationism teaches people they have a purpose in life, and since creationism can offer a viable alternative to the evidence provided by the fossils, it would seem that it would be fair to teach creationism equally with evolution. Note: I did not defend the existence of objective morality due to the fact that my opponent has affirmed it's existence in a past debate. That said, I would be more than happy to make a case for it if so desired.