Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

Another forfeit? Well, I guess I will conclude my arguments in this round. I'v realised I haven't used sources. Sorry, I'm new to this so I will put some down now. Theories can't be proved - http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com... Carbon dating and it's validity- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... Faith and whether science is a religion- http://www.thehumanist.org... This shows some interesting evidence that mammals living with dinosaurs were bigger than expected. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... E. Coli experiment- http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I have found some interesting information about the dinosaur footprints you mentioned, or at least a similar case. "The color of the elongate dinosaur tracks often differs from that of the surrounding limestone. This color spreads out not only where the imprints can be clearly seen but also out into the less visible digit marks. According to Kuban, this shows that the tracks appear to be of human origin because of secondary sediment that has filled in the tracks. Now that the color of the new material is beginning to change, the original shape of the tracks is becoming more obvious. This, combined with features in the tracks that do not agree with human footprints, such as anterior splaying visible even when the tracks were first discovered, proves that the tracks in the Paluxy River are completely of dinosaurian origin (Kuban 1992). The resounding evidence against the human footprints has caused even most creationists to admit that the tracks are of dinosaurs, not humans. John Morris investigated the "human" tracks in the Paluxy River during 1970's and published a book arguing that the tracks were indeed humanoid. Morris, who is now the leader of the Institute for Creation Research, later recanted his assertion after visiting the Paluxy sights with Glen Kuban. The Institute for Creation Research admitted, in its Impact article #151, "In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also" (Morris). The group Films for Christ, who released a movie entitled Footprints in Stone which toted the "human" tracks as valid, had a representative present for the meeting with Kuban, and shortly after they took this film out of circulation (Kuban 1992)." http://www.usd.edu... I still have not been presented with a single piece of valid, scientific evidence for Creation theory; not only on this debate, but from any resource I have access to. How can something be taught in a science class with no evidence for it, and the only reason being that it is a popular belief? If that is a good enough argument for teaching something in science, there is no reason why other 'beliefs' can be taught. How about Scientology? Most people would laugh at the idea, but it is quite a popular belief in the western world, so surely, their version of creation is also a theory, and must be taught as an alternative. The church of the flying spaghetti monster is a classic example. If you are not familiar with it, it was created after the Kansas school board ruled that creationism should be taught in science lessons because of their personal beliefs. A man called Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the school board explaining his 'religion', where the God resembled spaghetti and meatballs and hold a so called 'pastafarian' theory of Creation that he argued must be taught in science classrooms on the same merit as 'Christian' creation. Here is the open letter- http://www.venganza.org.... Another example of this nature called Russell's Teapot (By Bertrand Russell) shows that 'burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.' His example was as followed. "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." This is not really about creation, but instead shows how potentially, any belief with no evidence cannot be disproved, giving the illusion of validity. However, It is simply not good enough to be taught in science. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot My argument is that anything that does not have evidence and is not a scientifically recognised theory should not be taught in science lessons, as it is simply not science. Creationism can be taught in Religious Education classes because that is what it is; religion. My general conclusion is that science and creation are separate. It wouldn't be right to teach evolution in Sunday School or mention it in sermons would it? So why teach Creation in Science Lessons? The only reason supporters want it taught is because it challenges their views, and they are worried their children will accept the theory and reject their baseless religious stories. The reality is, evolution is not taught as a fact, it is taught as a theory, and students know that. They are not told, 'this is what happened' they are told 'this is what we think happened at the moment due to the evidence that is available.' When you compare that to creation, where children are told 'This is what happened, it is certain. Evolution isn't definite so creation must be true', which one is better to be taught in science?