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

Do you not read? I said I believe in evolution. Don't fucking tell me I have no idea what evolution, and or a theory means. The relevance of "all it does is describe a process" is in relation to evolution and creationism. They both describe, in their own ways, a process. Yet you choose to believe more in evolution because of "scientific 'fact'" and not creationism because all you think when someone says creationism is "oh the bible..." blah bla blah its fucking more to it than the bible... None of this has any relevance as to whether or not something is true. Evolution is not "just chance" anyway, natural selection is the driving force of evolution which isn't chance at all.You proved my point, thank you. If evolution is not chance, and natural selection is the driving force, how do you think natural selection became to be? This is precisely where the "separation" and conflict comes in. That first part is exactly right, that is exactly what people should do. If someone saw a rainbow and had no evidence as to what causes it, you should say I don't know, not It is a magical snake or God did it or say it is anything else because you have no reason to think it is any of them.Responding to the second half of what you said even though it has nothing to do with what this debate is about, if there is no evidence for something where we should find evidence for it, that is evidence against that thing. That is the case for many Gods, but some Gods are unfalsifiable and because of this it is not a meaningful idea because if something is unfalsifiable you cannot determine whether or not it is true. Hm, unfalsifiable. So you attribute something to be false because there is both no evidence for or against? LOL Once again, you say there is no evidence when there obviously is. Wrong, try again. Do not pass go do not collect any fucking money. You do enjoy attacking straw men, you continuously do this. No one says that because science says I don't know that means there is nothing to know. The word I don't know doesn't mean that. No one has said that because science doesn't know something, it cant be true, this is just you attacking straws. Lets just say science didn't know that germs caused diseases ( just to let you know this is just a theory too), and they didn't have any evidence as to what causes them, this does not mean that if someone said that if someone proposed the germ idea that they were wrong, it just means that we cannot say that we know germs are causing it unless we have evidence for it being caused by them. Do you understand now? Attacking straws!? Fuck straws. I'm in a defensive attack mode towards YOUR WORDS! Fuck the straw man. I'm speaking to you. TO YOU. You just proved my point again. The evidence is not good enough for you and say you say "there is no evidence". How many times must I say this? Just because you, and some of the scientific community, says there is no evidence does not mean there is no evidence. Ill say it again. Just because the scientific community says there is no evidence, DOES NOT mean the evidence given by many is NOT actual evidence. Where does it state that? Give me 10 reasons why a god(s) does not exist? I hope faith ( faith as in belief without evidence) isn't with us for ever, that it just me being optimistic but hopefully it will disappear. Also curiosity is what drives science so if this ever disappears so will science. Even if belief in Gods is always around, this does not mean that it has any truth in it or should be part of science. It could be that people believing in astrology (which is a load of rubbish) might stay with us forever, but this doesn't mean we should incorporate it it into science, people believe a lot of rubbish and always have.I agree people have believed in many bullshit and rubbish shit, however, who's to say that out of all this "rubbish" there is no god(s)? Hm? Where? Who? What? When? Have there ever been a time where for certainty "there is no god(s)" AND YET, there is so much evidence FOR, more than AGAINST. AND SO because you're so "hurt, frustrated, whatever" you're willing to fight against something that will not go away, and jeopardize SCIENCE, all for the sake of what? What are you fighting against? What are you fighting for? I know what I am fighting for, and that's the belief I believe in, which is science and religion and art and beauty. What do you fight for? Science doesn't claim everything, but it is the only method we have for determining what is true about the world and it is incredibly successful at doing that.Science claims many things and does so all of the time. If they didn't claim anything, it wouldn't be in science books. If science doesn't claim anything, there would be no education of any sorts. Thats bullshit. Only method? Are you sure it's the only method? Thats where I strongly disagree. And once again, you've failed to see my point that science is not the only method to actually, logically, rationally, intelligently, determining what is true..