Should evolution or creationism be tought in schools?

Firstly i trake it back,it �S fun.Relativism is a subject so boring and long that would take all the fun out of it.In miswrote relatvism not rationalism.This subject is about that there is no ceartain truth but only a point of view.Secondly your question "is it more likely there is a god or no god",i belive none is more likely for neither is an easy one to prove.At first atheism will look like that it is closer to the truth but like i said before,the claim that god exists does not need hoc moves to survive so the theory of the belivers is also respectable. 

The bible says god showed himself in the past as a burning bush, or spoke to people. Nowadays we don't get any such signs from any gods, and those who say they really talk to god and talk back to him and can have a convo usually are found in a mental institute. So there when theres no real hard evidence then I say its not real. The human imagination is to powerful and people seem to give in to easily, if there is any life after death I have a feeling people will be disappointed that there will be no heaven or hell.

I mean whats to say even if there is a afterlife, that humans didn't just set up another ruling government for the dead.

Wrong.Atheism is a belief because even if god des or doesn't exist,you can't prove anything.You can neither prove god exists or doesn't exist.It is impossible to prove both ways.So,atheism is a belief.

This has 2 causes:

1. If it's true, one still can't directly observe this as it's a slow process and "you can't observe a chance unless the chance is already underway". But maybe this is what you meant with 'problem'.

2. 'Species' doesn't have a proper definition, it's kind of arbitrary. What's your definition?

I'm not saying I'm religious, I'm saying you are . But that's just what I believe, so.. hmm that makes me religious as well  I think everyone either believes something or does not, in the 'not' case is not atheism but agnosticism. Your inner core is my bark. My bark is your inner core. I just wanted to point that out, the "inner core" is no mathematical truth, it depends on your perspective 

I'm just an agnost most of the time by the way, different views don't bother me, the only thing that bothers me is fundamentalism (in any religion, including (and especially sometimes) atheism the way I see it), but I think all posts in this topic have been great

And no more votes for creationism 

I hear you, but that's exactly what I don't agree with.

That's the epicentre where we don't agree. I think atheism is based on an assumption, just like other religions are based on assumptions. One example, atheists will believe there's "nothing" after death, whereas Buddhists will believe in reincarnation. Now, it might seem the "nothing" is the base, and that reincarnation is a belief diverting from that, like you'd argue, but I think it's not. You could view it the other way around just as well. Looking at nature, everything moves in cycles and nothing is lost or added. Reincarnation could be the 'base', and the "nothing" would be the alternative assumption, the alternative belief. You see? Neither have evidence (if there is evidence on post mortem acitivity, let's disregard it for the moment), it comes down to what basic assumtion you make. Both are equal assumptions IMO. Now of course, it mustn't get in the way of actual fact. But on areas there is no scientific evidence or research, all explainations and assumptions are just as fine to me.

Back on the evolution/creationism topic; To me creationism does seem to get in the way of fact. That's why I think it should not be taught. I think evolution should be taught because it's the leading theory; it is either right (which i assume) or it will be rejected in the future by scientists that were taught this theory, so they were familiar with it and could reject it rightfully. Win-win.