Evolution vs creationism /Why is evolution taught in school but creation not?

As either a qualified or potential teacher, I hope my opponent brings something noteworthy to talk about it on this discussion. Frankly, the topic is dull with incompetent pro-creationism arguments so here's to hoping my opponent can prove his weight.

I'm withholding any substantive arguments since none have been provided thus far, but the basic argument I am relying for why evolution is taught in school is because it is the most probable scientific theory accounting for life's diversity. As one would suspect, the debate would probably center at least partially on the scientific plausibility of creationism.

My opponent strings together two arguments together but does little to provide his respective reasoning for any of them. It's imperative that he realizes this debate is two-folded and that it's not only the job of myself to discuss arguments in detail.

"You state that evolution is the most probable scientific theory accounting for life's diversity, what is most probable is not always correct..There is no reason that either should be taught in science classes if the science doesn't full support on side or the other."

Disregarding serious and relevant epistemic concerns about rational acceptance (which I doubt will be brought up by my opponent), a prima facie response is to point out I have not stated nor am I bothered by the possibility of evolution being false. In other words, it is rational to accept evolution as a scientific theory that most likely describes reality. Science never grounds or 'fully supports' one theory given known epistemic limits inherent in empirical observations. I plead of you to bring up any scientific theory that is fully supported by science - I'd argue you can't, because the mere fact of imagining the negation is sufficient.

"To this day, there is no way to observe five of the six stages of evolution using the scientific method."

Either this is too vague or am I ignorant of evolutionary literature (which can be a distinct possibility), but at least one idea these 6 stages you refer to would be the way in which evolution on Earth has been characterized (from the origin of life/first common ancestor to intellegient humans and technology). I'd assume you believe only the last stage (humans and their creation) is 'observable' while the rest are not. This criticism has a glaring problem that I am surprised you are fine with:

Observing need not be manifested in direct sensory perception - we can use various instruments, secondary sources (history?), etc. to observe phenomena in a scientifically reputable fashion. I'm hoping you aren't pigeonholing what it means to observe in the way I have described. If so, it would help if you would be more specific and detailed with your arguments so I don't have to poke into the dark.

There's one last round, use it wisely.

Frankly, my opponent hasn't provdied any considerable muscle in his argument,instead reshasing typical concerns that can be considered dismissive.

"Cells are made up of tiny moving parts just as a machines are. if on piece is missing the whole cell cannot function. This means the cell could not have been created by evolution."

The argument from irreducible complexity, as you've outlined, is silly. We have many examples of exaption[http://en.wikipedia.org...] and even explanations of the ones provided my Michael Behe (the one who coined the term). Simply put, in large part this argument centers on ignoring a significant portion of evolutionary theory. As an analogy to this supposed problem of irreducible complecity, suppose you wonder how it's possible for one to create a stone arch bridge - after all, if you think about how one would place the stones together you would realize it isn't possible as if you even remove one stone the arch would collapse. But if we realize that the construction of such an arch happened above a centering that was later removed, then there is no issue of irreducible complexity.

"Six different types of evolution: Cosmic evolution (Big Bang), Chemical evolution ( big bang created hydrogen and all other elements on the periodic table formed from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution ( no one has ever seen a star form), Organic evolution (how life started), macro evolution ( species to species evolution), micro evolution ( evolution within a species)."

Well I've seen this before. Little to say, the fact that we can't directly percieve the first 5 with our naked senses doesn't mean you have listed examples of scientifically invalid ideas - we have things called scientific instruments. And what's even more alarming is that you equate BIOLOGICAL evolution with evolution of various other kinds, an obvious equivcation of meaning. Shall we the dispute the evolution of my hair styles, or of music genres?

Dissapointing debate.