Where?
Debate is closed in academia because Creationism isn't science. It's a supernatural theory, and science deals with nature.
I don't mind the flat earth being debated either; by immortals who have nothing better to do. But we teach science to our children poorly enough already without wasting time on a) discredited theories and b) nonscience. The Earth is not flat, and it is not 6000 years old. There is no scientific evidence that either of these things are true.
No, it’s because of SOCAS.
“It's a supernatural theory, and science deals with nature.”
There is supernatural in it true enough, but there is also an historical record in it that has helped in many archeological discoveries. ”Where?” you say? Even some recent “discoveries” over the past 50 years, like the springs at the bottom of the oceans, were written about in the Bible. Even “micro evolution”, which is nothing more than adaptation, was written about in the Bible. Oh, and the Bible had designated the term “species” thousands of years before with “kinds”, but Evo’s do like to claim their own language. The Bible has been a guide for many scientists, as Ken Ham presented, in the discoveries of different scientific fields – even the fields themselves. Almost all scientists before the 20th century believed in a Creator before atheists “intelligentsia” in England bent on eugenics decided God was an enemy to their morals. Still, the debate continued to be mostly open in schools until leftists found the right legal case to bring in 1947. This is the only reason the Bible is not used in schools, and the Bible is filled with scientific data (as I have only minimally mentioned with the springs) that man can use, and has used.
“The Earth is not flat, and it is not 6000 years old. There is no scientific evidence that either of these things are true.
And the earth being millions of years has no evidence. Scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics.
But we teach science to our children poorly enough already without wasting time on a) discredited theories and b) nonscience.”
This should read: “But we teach Evo sudo-science to our children poorly enough already, and waste time on a) discredited theories and b) nonscience.” And this teaching of Evolution, has it been a part of anything useful, like the cures of diseases, the building of any transportation, etc? Funny, it seems that anything useful and/or beneficial from science has been created, not evolved.