Choice and the pushing of alternative views in politics and education.

Nowadays there is this whole idea that choice is good no matter what, and that without choice we'd somehow be controlled in a fascist way, now to some extent I agree, but when does it go too far in politics and religion, I'd like to make my view, hopefully you'll understand my point.

First though I'd like to go to education where choice and alternative views are a battle ground between the teaching of intelligent design, creationism and evolution.
First lets get this out of the way.
Definitions.
Evolution: the theory that claims that life has changed over millions of years from a universal common ancestor via a process called natural selection whereby advantageous mutations are kept within a gene pool and eventually leads to speciation of geographically separated populations that can no longer reproduce.
It is supported by the fossil record, and genetic evidence which shows that humans are related to apes, apes and dogs are related to cabbages (to an equal extent as well, as would be expected if mammals and plants diverged at the same point)

Intelligent design: the belief that life does mutate and change over time, but only within "kinds" birds can only evolve and change into other birds etc.
These original kinds were produced by a creator, either god, or some other life form (was that life intelligently designed too?)
It is only dubiously supported by the fossil record, and actively goes against the molecular record, which is in fact a stronger and more accurate record.

Creationism, the belief that all life was created in its present form by a creator, usually the Judaeo-Christian God.
Has to actively deny the scientific evidence of the fossil record and molecular evidence that posits and old earth and a common descent.

Now people claim that the latter 2 theories should be taught in science classes, to "teach the controversy" as they like to call it, the problem with this is that both these latter 2 theories go against the evidence, if intelligent design was true, then there would be no strong genetic link between dogs and apes as they're different kinds, and they definitely wouldn't share (non working in some cases) genetic information with cabbages, especially to the exact same level.

And creationism especially the young earth form completely disagrees with the age of the earth.

The fact is, we should not teach anything in science class if it's not backed by strong evidence, if so we would have to point out that some people are still flat earthers.
Or as many people have stated, creationism is a religious belief, (as is intelligent design in reality, but they try to claim it's not, for example, in the Dover intelligent design trial they found an early copy of an intelligent design book had the word cintelligent designism, where the author had actually simply made a mistake when editing all mentions of creationism with intelligent design) and religious beliefs are not science by any stretch, and should not be taught as such.
If so we'd have to teach pastafarianism in class.

The best allegory was made by Richard dawkins who said it would be like having to teach the opinion that the Romans never existed in a Latin class.
Or having to give equal credence to the opinion that the holocaust never happened.
Both are claims with no evidence yet with lots of evidence against them.

Now lets move on to politics.
Lets start with gay marriage, is the choice to marry something homosexuals should have, some people have said it infringes on Christian belief that homosexual marriage and sexual relations is wrong, and therefore should not be allowed.
Now here’s the problem with this, if homosexual marriage was legalised, how would it "infringe" on the rights of Christians to disapprove of gay marriage?
Marital rape is legal in some countries; if I went to those countries I'd still have the right to disapprove.
It's a problem of logic to believe that giving another group rights infringes on your rights simply because you disapprove of it.
It would actively have to affect your life in some tangible form.
So what am I getting at?
Well it's pretty obvious.
If homosexual marriage were legal, Christians would not have to get gay married.
The only people who have had their rights amended are the homosexuals themselves.

I'm not going to go into abortion as it's a tricky one, the only way my reasoning works is if both sides agree that a foetus isn't a human being and is therefore not having its rights infringed.

Either way, there are 2 main arguments I want to make.

In politics:
If the majority disagrees with a change in someone’s right to choose, but it in no way affects them or anyone else’s rights to do something, the majority has no say, only the minority does, the majority of people used to be racist, we would not take their views into account if we were going through civil rights, because allowing a black person to drink out of their water fountain does in no way affect the right for the racist white man to drink from the same water fountain, it's his problem if he doesn't want to drink at the same fountain.

In education: we should not teach what the majority thinks is correct if the evidence goes against it.
49% of Americans think the earth is 6000 years old, it's not, stop trying to get it into classrooms.
60% of US high school students couldn't find the UK on a map, doesn't mean we should teach their opinion of where they think it was.
The majority of people in Britain think Sherlock Holmes is real.
Nuf said.