Creationism should be banned from science classes

In this debate, My opponent has pursued one line of argument - to attack evolution. On the other hand, I have provided the audience with multiple convincing arguments such as the falsehood of creationism, The secular nature of the US constitution, The separation of church and state, The education of a correct scientific world view and the false intellectual equivalence of scientific fact and religious myth. The reality is that instead of defending the teaching of creationism in schools, My opponent took the bait and confined his position to trying to poke holes in evolution. He has failed dramatically. According to Pew research centre 97% of scientists view evolution as a scientific fact - quite a hefty majority. Neither me nor my opponent is a qualified scientist. In my closing, I will provide evidence for evolution but on a side note, I want to point out that neither of us are qualified to actually evaluate scientific evidence since we aren"t experts in that field of knowledge. It"s like two non-doctors debating what medical condition a patient has - utterly unreliable. In a law court, Judges who aren"t experts in the matter at hand judge based on the balance of expert opinion. That"s why scientists are brought in to give evidence in hearings concerning stuff like climate change. And the balance of expert opinion lies heavily on my side and not the other. On that basis, This debate is over before it"s even begun because anyone who knows anything about biology tells us that evolution is an undeniable fact. In this debate I have provide concrete scientific evidence such as transition fossils from the Richard Dawkins foundation, Radiometric dating from the US government"s national parks geotimeline, Observable examples of evolution from Science Daily, Genetic evidence from renowned biologist Ken Miller, A refutal of your phony soft-tissue nonsense from the National Centre for Biochemistry and the human family tree from the Smithsonian national museum. Is that enough facts for you? Then what did my opponent respond with? Refuted pseudo-scientific articles from discredit fringe scientists written decades ago. In other words, A joke of a response. It"s the MOST pathetic evidence I"ve seen in response to my up-to-date scientific studies and physical evidence from credited and renowned scientists backed by the vast majority of the scientific community. My opponent also plagiarised a whole paragraph from the following website: . https://quantumpranx. Wordpress. Com/the-struggles-of-darwin/ Once again, The supposed "soft tissue" has been explained as the result of "common bacterial processes" and not actual dinosaur tissue. So, Your"e just wrong. Don"t even try to continue with it. It"s literally been completely debunked by more recent biology. And even if it wasn"t that one snippet of evidence couldn"t explain away the thousands of radiometric, Ice-core, Meteorological and tectonic studies which all independently put the age of the earth at 4. 5 billion years. Then my opponent hilariously uses the grand canyon claiming that it is evidence of a young earth. He claimed that single-celled organisms being separated by hundreds of layers of rock is evidence of those layer being played quickly. This is completely wrong. Why? For most of the timeline of life, Organisms have been single-celled. Single-celled organisms have existed for billions of years and thus it is no surprise that there are single-celled organisms separated by millions of years of rock in the grand canyon. It is not evidence that it was laid quickly merely that life has existed for a very long time. My opponent then tries to use the bible - the nutter's last resort. The bible is a great work of literature and a great source of moral philosophy but it is NOT a source of scientific knowledge. A 9000 year old tree: . https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Old_Tjikko As for the creation of DNA. I don't know. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life merely the nature of the natural world and how it came to be. There are multiple natural explanations for the origin of life. Plus, The materials needed to form DNA (which evolved) can be found naturally on earth. We have sufficient natural deposits of phosphates, Nitrates, Carbon, Water etc. The analogy of the 747 is false. I'll provide a better analogy. Imagine a tornado racing through millions and millions of metal yards and then one of them forming a 747. That's how it works. The scientific community considers homo erectus to be an extinct species of hominid. And even if it was a sub-species, That still doesn't devalue all the other fossils which I previously mentioned. Oh and by the way, You still haven't debunked every single ancient species of human so keep going. . https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Homo_erectus In conclusion, My opponent's cherry-picked creationist articles from discredited scientists from decades ago define why creationism must be kept out of science classes. I ask my opponent: find me a single scientific study or experiment which proves creationism instead of creationist articles. My evidence is from credited sources and includes scientific studies based on real findings from the laboratory or the field. Here are some live experiments proving evolution: . https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution. https://www . https://www. Sciencedaily. Com/releases/2008/04/080417112433. Him Creationism is a dangerous lie and doesn't have a shred of evidence for it whatsoever. Whereas evolution has 97% of support for it alongside an ocean of undeniable facts. You don't have to believe in talking snakes, Magic fruit, Vegetarian crocodiles, 900 year-old humans and making people out of mud to believe in god. There is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy as there is for young-earth creation. Yet we wouldn't teach about the tooth-fairy or the easter bunny in science class would we? Vote for reason, Science and truth. Evolution is a fact - creation - a lie.