Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

http://www.dalemfg.com/creationevolution_013.htm Those numbers come from Fred Hoyle. His claim is known as Hoyle's Fallacy, and sometimes referred to as the Junkyard Tornado. He is another example of someone not understanding the subject matter and committing logical fallacies. In this case he constructs a strawman with his junkyard tornado analogy. Hoyle was an astronomer and mathematician, not a biologist, so it's understandable why he wouldn't have a clear understanding of the subject matter. This website explains why his numbers are inaccurate. If you just Google Hoyle's Fallacy, you'll find tons of additional information on it.For your first point its simply because your putting God in a box and nothing outside is allowed. Its not special pleading, your applying human restrictions of capability on a deity.The argument was something can't come from nothing, except god. In other words, everything must fit into the box, except god. If there is an except, that is special pleading. Keep in mind, I didn't create that box, the people who say "something can't come from nothing" created that box, I'm just saying that it is special pleading when someone says "something can't come from nothing", but in their very next breath they say god can come from nothing. My point is that if god can be outside the box, then there is no reason to assume that other things can't be out of the box as well. If god can exist without a creator, then why can't whatever triggered the big bang?Why did the cells in the cup form an eye?Random mutation and natural selection over millions of years. Before continuing, I highly recommend heading over to this debate and watching the video in the description to make sure you have a clear understanding of how natural selection works. It also addresses many of the common misconceptions about evolution.The development of the eye went through many stages, and all of those stages are still present today. Each stage give the animal a slight advantage over its predecessors, so it would be favored by natural selection. Stage 1: Many simple forms of life such as earth worms and heterotroph euglena have a light sensitive cell that only allows them to tell if it is light or dark. Stage 2: Flat worms and limpets have similar light sensitive cells in a very shallow cup. Stage 3: Nautilus have light sensitive cells in a deeper and narrower cup, but still no lens. Stage 4: Then there are numerous animals with murky lenses and very poor vision, such as the conch.Stage 5: Finally, you have animals with clear lenses and an iris, giving them the ability to focus better.Why was an eye needed? You are far more likely to survive and reproduce if you can see, so natural selection would favor it.Why is their a cup? A cup is just one of the many variations, but a cup shape allows you to detect which direction the light is coming from, so natural selection would favor it.How many years did it take? Life first started approximately 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago, and the first rudimentary eye that is visible is fossils (trilobytes) was approximately 521 million years ago. So, that means it took around 3 to 3.4 billion years for the first rudimentary eye to develop that is visible in fossils. However, eyes in soft-tissued animals like invertebrates most likely wouldn't be visible in fossils, so the early stages of eye development most likely started before that. If all life was intelligently designed, then why are there animals with barely functional eyes, poor vision, or color blindness? That seems like rather poor design. Why are there animals showing various stages of eye development that we would expect to see if they evolved?Why do millions of people need glasses/contacts?Probability has proven many species (I think humans were one if them) shouldn't exist if evolution ran its course. That probability you're speaking of is probably based in false assumptions and misinformation like Hoyle's fallacy, so you'll have to provide some sources so I can check their validity.Evolutionists say with evey generation an evolution occurred to dispute it, then why did this stop?That sentence doesn't really make sense. Please clarify and provide sources.BTW, thanks for keeping the debate friendly. There are so many people on this site that can't debate without name calling and personal insults, so it's nice to have some civil people like yourself in the mix.