Creationism should not be taught in schools

I would first like to tell the audience that I am not arguing that creationism should be taught in place of evolutionism. But that creationism should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution. I will begin by giving evidence to support my claims, then give refutations of Pros refutations. (Lol)Claim A: I. Lack of transitional forms. According to Darwinian evolution, life started out as a simple, single-celled organism, and then evolved over roughly 3.5 billion years into the enormous range of life we see today. Along the way, there would have to be millions, even billions of transitional forms, that is, species evolving new functions and biological structures through beneficial mutations. We would expect that throughout the entire lifespan of life on this planet, there should be at the very least thousands of examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. The problem is: there are few, if any examples of transitional forms at all. Even the examples of transitional forms given by evolutionists are hotly disputed. In most cases, between creationists and evolutionists, and in some cases, amongst evolutionists. II. Weak evidence that beneficial mutations were the engine of macro evolution. It is common knowledge amongst geneticists that mutations are inherently harmful. Mutations are mistakes made in the DNA code while it is replicated. The effect is that information in genes are lost, causing the gene to either become useless, or dysfunctional. a) . http://www.genetichealth.com... I challenge my opponent to provide evidence of a beneficial mutation. Keep in mind what a mutation actually is, and that a stellar example of a beneficial mutation would be a mutation that actually resulted in a new function. However, even if my opponent can give a legitimate example of one, or even two beneficial examples that resulted in new functions, this still would not account for the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. And if the theory of Darwinian evolution were true, then we should be seeing mutations that result in new functions all the time. Claim B: My opponent has already given me evidence to support this claim. My opponent gives two examples of "vestigial organs". The coccyx (tail bone) and wisdom teeth are often cited in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution. Unfortunately, these "vestigial organs" are not vestigial at all. Tail bone: First of all. My opponent claims that there is "evidence" to suggest that the coccyx was once the base for a tail in humans. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten to tell us what this evidence is, or even give an explanation for why the coccyx is evidence for evolution. Secondly, the tailbone has a clear function. As this site puts it:"Since human’s do not contain a tail, the coccyx or tailbone is sometimes referred to as a vestigial structure. However the coccyx has many functions in the human body, such as providing protection, support while sitting, and serving as the location of many attachment sites for ligaments and muscles. "-. http://www.learnbones.com...Wisdom teeth: Here my opponent has uses the fallacy: circular reasoning. Meaning that his proof of Darwinian evolution relies on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is true. In reality, wisdom teeth are more of an example of de-evolution then anything. Essentially, creationism teaches that after sin entered the world, the gene code became prone to corruption, and over time information within the gene code was lost. a) Romans 8-19-21However, for those with jaws suitable to hold wisdom teeth, wisdom teeth work just fine, and are beneficial. Argument C. Teaching students a theory that has not been proved as fact is indoctrination. My opponent has yet to give any evidence for macro evolution at all. In reality, much of the "evidence" supporting macro evolution is composed nearly entirely of circular reasoning then actual evidence, as my opponent has already proved with his "evidence" for evolution. *Refutations*Rebuttal A) Already refuted in Claim B. Rebuttal B) "Can you please tell me a theory that has more evidence? "In regards to origins? Or theories in general? The observable evidence for creationism and evolution is relatively balanced since one can interpret the information to be supportive of both sides. My opponent's question relies on the pre-supposed assumption that there is more evidence supporting evolution regarding origins then creationism, while not actually giving an example of more evidence leaning towards evolution then creationism. "While some parts of macro-evolution have not been completely proved. .. "Essentially my opponent has already made my case for me. By admitting that macro evolution has not yet been proven as an established fact he supports my case that it is irresponsible for our educational system to teach it as fact. "It is the best theory we have. "What one considers is a better theory is arbitrary. I consider creationism the best theory as opposed to Darwinian evolution. Rebuttal C) Once again, my opponent claims that the theory of evolution has". .. large amounts of evidence supporting it. .. "and goes on to say". .. it is accepted by most major scientific institutions. .. ". First of all, my opponent has once again failed to cite said evidence. Secondly, he uses the the fallacy of. .. I don't know the name of it. Basically he claims that evolution must be true because a lot of scientists believe it. There was a time when much of the scientific community believed the world was flat. That does not mean the world was flat. Con must give legitimate evidence that evolution is actually true. Rebuttal B) This argument only works if we're debating about whether the subject of origins should be addressed in our educational system or not. Obviously bias may occur on both sides, including situations where atheist teachers teach biased against creationism. However, if educational systems insist on teaching about our origins, the only responsible thing to do would be to present both theories.