Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

No. "Material", in the sense that I used it, has nothing to do with worldly vs spiritual matters. "Material" is a term commonly applicable in philosophy, law (e.g. "material fact"), and in academic or formal works in general.The relevant definition from Dictionary.com: "of substantial import; of much consequence; important: Your support will make a material difference in the success of our program."If there are material differences between x and y in the matter of z, it means there are differences between x and y which would affect in some significant way the matter of z.To raise an example:-------------A kid is in hospital, having broken his arm. The doctor says, "That arm will need to stay in a cast."The kid asks skeptically, "Does it really make a difference whether or not I use a cast?"Doctor says, "Yes, it does. The broken bones won't heal properly if you don't."There is a material difference between the kid using or not using a cast, in that if he doesn't use it, the bones won't heal properly.Then the kid asks, "Well, white is such a boring colour. Would it be ok if I coloured it blue?"Doctor says, "No problem. It doesn't matter what the cast's colour is."There is no material difference between using a white or a blue cast in terms of whether or not they would allow his arm to heal properly. There is a difference, of course, in that a white cast is white and a blue cast is not white, but that is not a material difference.Now imagine this kid is taking part in a school play where he's supposed to sneak across the stage in camouflage. The stage background is completely white. His teacher had him wear white shirt and pants, and put white body paint all over him. Then the kid asks, "Is it ok for me to have a blue cast?"The teacher would say, "Nope, it needs to be white, or else you won't get the camouflage effect."In this situation, whether the cast is white or blue does make a material difference. This is why I say that you cannot have something make a material difference, period. Whether or not something makes a material difference is always relative to what you're trying to achieve.-------------I won't reply to the rest of your arguments regarding the word "material" since they were based on a faulty understanding of the meaning and hence are largely irrelevant.(1) You still have not provided an adequate answer for this argument. You just keep insisting that only theories with substantial scientific backing should be taught at school. It's fine for you to keep believing that; it's your standpoint and it's not unreasonable. But repeating your standpoint over and over won't make your argument more convincing. I argued that there are times when non-scientific theories can also be taught at school, and provided explanations for why I think there is a much better case for teaching about creationism than teaching about Cthulhu building the moon out of cheese. You have not responded to these arguments.(2) You have offered a reply :D Now the argument can continue.If you say that teachers don't have to pretend anything, exactly how do they go about teaching effectively? I argued that creationism should have a place in the classroom, so that teachers can explain what it is and what problems it has. You say it shouldn't. But you also say that teachers don't have to pretend the theory of creationism doesn't exist. So what do teachers do when a kid raises their hand during a lesson on evolution and comments, "But Daddy says God made people just as they are now"?I remember my days in school science class, when this exact situation happened. Since teachers are prohibited by law from teaching religion, and hence creationism as it is based on religion, my science teacher literally just had to shake her head and say "No, no, no." Then she continued with her teaching.I don't think that kid really believed in creationism; he was still trying to make up his mind. If the teacher had been allowed to explain what creationism is and how it compares with evolution in terms of scientific backing (as I am proposing), that kid might have had a much better understanding of the issue. But because the teacher couldn't say a thing, he remained as befuddled as before.(3) You have ascribed to me a view that I do not hold. Nowhere have I said that creationism should be taught as fact. Imagine how confused students will be if a teacher first taught evolution as fact, then taught creationism as fact! What I said in my first argument was that students could be exposed to multiple perspectives, and I insisted that teachers must make it clear that it is evolution which has scientific backing.LogicSo I take it you are making these two arguments to support your claim that I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic:(1) Evolution is proven, I made arguments supporting teaching a theory incompatible with evolution, therefore my arguments ignore the rules of logic.(2) There is a measure by which we decide what we teach children at school, creationism falls short of that measure, therefore my arguments ignore the rules of logic.Now those arguments are not logical, if anything. Their conclusions are structurally irrelevant to the premises.I think you don't grasp the concept of logic. The rules of logic state that a valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Logical validity is not determined by actual truth values at all.To attack the logic of an argument, you would have to show that the truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.What you have done here is attack the substance of my argument. While it is not wrong to attack the substance (in fact debates usually target the substance more than the logic), it does nothing to support your claim that my arguments do not follow the rules of logic (i.e. are not logically valid).I would go further to say that these examples you have made are also inappropriate analogies to the evolution vs creationism debate, but seeing as how you have yet to reply to my previous argument concerning inappropriate analogies, I won't waste my time typing out even more arguments that will probably also be ignored :/You know, I really do enjoy reading most of the comments you make elsewhere on the site - you provide interesting tidbits of information. But here you seem to be stuck on finding creative ways to call me stupid, which doesn't advance the debate in a constructive manner, or do anything at all really...