Public schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes

I would first like to remind my opponent that the subject we are debating is not whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools science class but whether or not creationism should be taught. We are not saying I will continue by countering my opponent's arguments:1. You quoted a text that said that the first universities were opened by religious people or groups. I would like to say that as the quote says that these were "cathedral schools". Being these, they probably did not teach the "scientific method thinking" my opponent stated before, but rather religious ideas/ways. Now, my opponent may say that these cathedral schools have evolved today into schools where science is promoted and taught, but as they have done this they probably also evolved away from religion, rendering your argument invalid.2. You then explained that many scientists had actually been "funded by religious organizations, in special the Pontifical Academy of Sciences". I must say that about this, I found many different sources saying different things. Some say that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences supports the theory of evolution, which, if you are willing to use this academy as proof that religion and science can coexist alongside one another, renders your previous arguments on why creationism should be taught null. Others say that it supports creationism, making the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' relevance to the fact that scientific ideas were supported by some religious groups rather uncertain. Either way, one of your previous arguments is countered. Also, I would like to add that the scientists you stated that were funded by religious groups were quite modern ones. I find it rather normal that science and religion can 'tolerate' each other in today's civilized society rather than having one (religion) burn people alive for discovering truths they did not like, and although I maybe should have specified, when I said about science and religion that "history has often portrayed these two as opposites entirely", I was not talking about the few exceptions were the two may have walked along the same path.3. "Science in the terms that we are discussing, such as evolutionism, is not the truth. Science, in this case, is the search for accuracy." I will start by saying that the definition of 'accuracy' is "the condition or quality of being true". This being said, if scientists, as my opponent stated, that "search for accuracy" (aka. the truth) have found that evolution is the most accurate, they are saying it is the 'truest' theory. But "Truth is binary", as my opponent said, and this is why they have accepted evolution as the complete truth, as no other theory has the same amount of proof, which brings me to my next argument...4. "Truth is binary: you either have it or you don't". This is also the case for proof: you either have it or you don't. Evolution has proof, creationism has none. Why should education give as much importance to a theory that has proof and one that was the creation of one's imagination that has none? It is a good thing our justice system doesn't work like that, as people would get punished with no proof found against them while others would be acquitted from crimes they clearly committed.My two past points talk more about whether or not evolution is right or wrong, but this is not the debate, which is why I did not spend much time on them. To come back to the debate: why should the scientifically accepted theory be given as much credit as one creationism that is not and has not been proved in any scientific or non-scientific way for that matter?5. "And science is not something that you can totally trust." I think the better phrasing is 'science is not something that you can trust in its entirety', which is true, but as the parts that you can trust have proved things about our world and proved wrong things that religion asserted, I find that you can trust it more than certain religious ideas that have no proof whatsoever.6. About the bible you said, "just because it is old it doesn’t mean that it is wrong". I never said this and sorry if that was inferred. What I meant to say was that, as "it is old", I find it to be a less reliable source of information, which is a perfectly valid argument.7. "You are saying that evolutionism is something that everybody should accept, which isn’t true." Being pro for this debate does not mean that you are going to replace the teaching of the theory of evolution with creationism, but that you will add creationism to the science class curriculum, which would be taught along with evolution. This being said, I will still counter your argument. As you may know from previous science classes you attended, science class is not all about learning facts, but rather, as you have said, learning the "scientific method thinking", to acquire a critical view of the world surrounding you. As evolution is taught, it will not just be giving a class on what evolution is, and plainly say it is the truth, it will give the factual evidence of evolution and show the students why it is the theory that has been accepted by scientists. If creationism was taught, as I have said before, there would be no facts showing why it is a possible theory, as there are no existing facts. The object of a science class is to teach the "scientific method thinking", so why should it do anything other than that? Now, if you are religious and have beliefs that you find revoke the theory of evolution, you are free to think whatever you want.8. "Classes should teach the “scientific method of thinking”, but not that THIS thing is right, and that THAT thing is wrong." I agree with this totally, but to a certain degree. A class should only say that something is true if it is indisputably right, and same goes for what is wrong. However, saying that two things are just as right when one has ample proof and the other does not is rather absurd. Also, as creationism has nothing to do with science, as I have already said, I do not believe it has a place in public school science classes.To conclude, I believe only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school science classes as it is the only one that has a minimum of accuracy, and is therefore the most accurate. This accuracy reflects of the "scientific method thinking", and as evolution is supported by scientists, it only should be taught in science class.Sources:http://conservation.catholic.org...http://www.casinapioiv.va...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.catholicculture.org...