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

Yes, it does depends on your belief of the evidence, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and the evidence for creation seems to always be based on a lack of understanding of scientific principles or evidence, or based on logical fallacies. Let me give you some examples.------------------------------------------ SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHINGThis is one of most common arguments used by creationists, but what they fail to realize is that it refutes their god just as much as it does evolution. Is god something or nothing? If they say he is something, then they have just admitted that something can come from nothing and have defeated their own argument. Next they will often say, "but god is the exception." That's a logical fallacy known as special pleading. If god can be an exception, then why can't other things?Problems with this argument: It's self-defeating and uses special pleading.------------------------------------------ COMPLEX THINGS MUST HAVE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNERCreationists often use the Payley's Watchmaker analogy to argue this point. Just like the last argument, Payley's Watchmaker is also a self-defeating argument. If something complex can't exist without a creator, then the creator can't exist because it too would have to be complex in order to create something. A being capable of creating an entire universe out of nothing is surely more complex than a common house fly.Another problem with the watchmaker analogy is that it makes a false comparison. A watch is not a natural biological organism, whereas life is a natural biological organism. A watch is something we know is crafted by a watchmaker though very specific processes. We know that you have to dig the ore from the ground, smelt it, craft the pieces, and put them all together in a very specific way that cannot happen through natural processes. Biological organisms, on the other hand, are things we know can go from simple to more complex over time through the process of mutation and natural selection. A very basic example of this is the flu virus. The reason people have to get a new flu shot every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving and developing a resistance (becoming more complex) to the vaccine from previous years.Problems with this argument: It's self-defeating, makes a false comparison, uses special pleading, and is based on ignorance of biological processes.------------------------------------------ IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITYCreationists often claim that things like cells, eyes, and flagellum are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved, because if you remove one part of it the whole thing wouldn't work. However, it has been demonstrated many times how those things could have formed in stages, but creationists are either unaware of this information or just don't like that it disproves their claim of irreducible complexity, so they ignore it.Problems with this argument: It's is based on a lack of knowledge of possible explanations.------------------------------------------ Those were just a handful of examples, but all the creationist claims I've heard suffer from the same types of problems, either a lack of understanding or a logical fallacy. If there is specific evidence for creation that you think is strong and would like me to address, just let me know.