Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

1) 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. Yes I do read and I know you said you believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean you understand it. You referred to it as "chance" so it makes it look like you don't. Also you referred to evolution as "just a theory" and so again it makes it look as if you do not know what a theory in science is. 2) 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... No I accept evolution because it is supported by lots of evidence, also there has never been any evidence provided to me for creationism of any sort, if you think there is evidence for creationism provide some.3) 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. I am not sure what point I have supposedly proved can you tell me what point this is?How do I think natural selection came to be? You do know that basically natural selection is just that the animals most suited to the environment survive. I consider your question to be like this one: how did it come to be that tall people can reach higher then short people?It would make no sense if the least adapted to an environment survived, just as it makes no sense that a short person could reach higher. 4) 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.Anyone else who reads this can see what I wrote and that was not it. I said a unfalsifiable hypothesis is a meaningless one because you cannot determine whether or not it is true. There is no evidence for a God, but this is not the title of this debate. I will try and keep this on topic now, if you want to debate God I will be happy too, but create another debate for it.5) 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? Where are these points coming from which i am proving? Also I stand by what I said you have continued to attack straw men. If you read what I wrote it does not say any of what you are claiming it says. I will leave it to you to read what I actually wrote. 6) 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? Do you forget your past argument when you responded? you said:  Regardless of whether a child is taught in school or not, the concept/fact of belief in a god(s) will always be existent. So long as curiosity is within the DNA, and consciousness, of the human being, people will continue to believe in god. So why separate it?My argument wasn't that belief in God was false ( I think it is though) but that just because people could believe in it for ever, that doesn't mean it should be part of science or that it is true. I said that people could believe in Astrology for ever but that doesn't mean that we should encompass that into science, which I am sure you would agree with. 7) 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.If you want to debate this, I will, but create another debate.8) 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? I fight for truth and reason. I see the world religions as false, I see faith ( meaning belief without evidence) as being idiotic and should be actively discouraged, I see belief in God as false because there is no evidence for a deity and I consider it a shame that people still believe in bronze age myths.9) 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. I don't have to really respond to this because I said everything not anything.10) 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..I said only method we have to determine what is true about the world. If you can name another method which can do this, I am listening.11)Finally you are yet to give any evidence for creationism or intelligent design ( I am not sure if you think this should also be taught), if you think they should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom alongside evolution then they need evidence backing them up. If you have no evidence then they should not be taught along side evolution.