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

You are making science seem like a stagnant thing, like a thing based on evidence that never changes.Where did I say anything like that? Scientific hypotheses change, but it's very rare for a scientific theory to change. Hypotheses are just best guesses based on the available data, which is often very limited, and as more data becomes available they refine their hypothesis. Once they have gathered enough data, they upgrade their hypothesis to a theory. A theory is as high as it goes in the scientific world. Take gravity for example, even though we know for a fact that it exists, it is still just called the theory of gravity.science changes all of the time and tosses away old shit and "discovers new shit".But that "old shit" had some evidence behind it. It may be incomplete evidence, which is why the hypothesis based on that evidence was eventually discarded or refined, but at least it had some evidence, unlike creation. Like I said, scientists refine their hypothesis and theories as more information becomes available. Refining their ideas is very different than completely changing them. It's very rare for scientists to make a complete 180 and say they were completely wrong about something. If you disagree, I would like you to list some scientific theories (not hypothesis) that scientists said they were sure was true, but now say they were wrong.And so, teaching people science is not the only source of truth we've got to teach peopleWhat are some other sources of truth, and how do you determine if they are true?Why should knowledge be limited to simply science?I never said it should. I believe science is ONE way to understanding the world around usWhat are the other ways that produce reliable results and are not based on pure whim?Many people, like yourselves, are "scared, frustrated, disturbed" that creationism will "brainwash" or "teach wrong knowledge" to a person. Why is that?If parents want to teach their children creationism, I'm not going to tell them they can't, but it has no place being taught in schools when there is zero evidence to back it up. If no evidence is required to teach something, then how do we determine what we should teach? Think about it, if we open the classrooms up to everything that is not backed by evidence, then every religion out there is going to want the schools to teach their doctrines, and if they don't they will cry out "discrimination!" We'll have to teach them about reincarnation, psychic powers, alien overlords, fairies, unicorns, and dragons. Do you really think schools have time for all that? They don't even have enough time to fit in the important stuff. The last thing they need is to waste precious time teaching things that have no evidence to support them. Does the possibility of something existing beyond what science can detect scare you? Why would it scare me? If anything it would fascinate me. I love it when new things are discovered. Simply saying "there is no physical evidence of these theories", is not a good enough to not allow people to want to broaden their horizon and learn, via multiple sources..."They are more than welcome to study things for which there is no evidence, but they need to do it on their own time. Schools don't have time to do it.It is limiting a persons knowledge to not allow them to study various topics and truths.How can you tell if something is a "truth" if there is no evidence to back it up? Just because some things are not taught in school doesn't mean they can't study things outside of school.