Creationist propaganda argument #1: Evolution is just a theory. It hasn’t been proven.
No it isn’t. In science a theory is not a guess or even an educated guess, it is a heavily tested explanation for a set of related observations. A Scientific theory can never be a fact, it explains the facts (facts being confirmed observations)
See Theory dose not mean theory.

Creationist propaganda argument #2: Evolution is just a theory, intelligent design is a theory as well. To be fare schools should teach both.
False. As I explained a scientific theory is not just a guess.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, its not even a hypothesis, For a theory to be a theory it needs testable predictions. Those predictions are what makes theory’s and hypotheses falsifiable , if you test the predictions and they turn out not to be accurate than the theory or hypotheses is falsified. Intelligent design has not produced any predictions, nor can it thus it is not science in any way shape or form.

Creationist propaganda argument #3: Evolution has never been observed.
This statement is based on a misconception that things have to be directly observed, this is simply not true. The vast majority of things can not be directly observed and must be indirectly observed, For example a black hole can not be directly observed but the effect of its gravity on the stars around it is observable.
And the statement is also false. Evolution (both inside and out side the lab) has been observed. A good example is bacteria that develop resistance to antibacterials as well as experiments of insects

Creationist propaganda argument #4: Evolution is not science cause it is not testable and falsifiable.
False. evolution makes predictions and they have all been verified.
Transitional and intermediate fossils have been predicted and found.
It predicts that animals isolated from the rest of the species will adapt to there environments and on isolated islands species have been found that diverge from species on the mainlands but are clearly closely related. (example: The Galapagos)
Evolution predicts that species that have closer common ancestors will be more closely related genetically than those who share a common ancestors that’s further back.

Creationist propaganda argument #5: Micro evolution has been proven but macro evolution hasn’t.
Well hypothetically if every day a pinny appeared on your door step and every day you took that penny and put in in a jar. In a week you would have 7 cents ( I just noticed something, there’s no cents symbol anywhere on my key board) in a month you would have 29 to 31 cents in a year you would have 3 dollars and 65 cents (66 in a leap year), in 10 years you would have 35 dollar and 52 cents, in 100 years you would have 365 dollar and 25 cents, if this continued for a 1,000 years you would have 3,652 and 50 cents. A penny is a very small amount of money but if you get a penny a day for a 1,000 years those penny’s add up. In this analogy the penny represents a micro evolutionary change and it clearly demonstrates how small changes can build up over time to become large changes (as well as (not relating to evolution) its the little things that build up become big things, weather it be in finance, relationships or anything else). So by saying that you except micro evolution that you must except macro evolution cause if micro evolution exists than macro evolution exists as a result of it.

Creationist propaganda argument #6: Evolution dose not explain where life comes from.
That’s actually true but its not meant to explain it. Abiogenesis and evolution are different subjects. that’s like criticizing the theory of gravity cause it doesn’t explain why fusion reactions happen in the cores of stars. Its not meant to explain it.

Creationist propaganda argument #7: Transitional fossils have never been found.
Well as I’ve said, they have but not to the creationists licking. Creationists would like to have every example of evolutionary change but, that’s just not going to happen, fossilsation is just too rare. And you don’t need a record of every change.

Creationist propaganda argument #8: Evolution encourages Immorality.
No, no it doesn’t. Morality exists both because of evolution. Evolution gave us the basis for morality and the brains to invent morality.
See Secular Morality.

Creationist propaganda argument #8: Evolution encourages eugenics and social darwinism.
No, no it doesn’t . Evolution is about natural selection. Choosing some trait that some person of the culture likes and killing or sterilising those who don’t have it or has a trait that some person or the culture dose not like is not natural selection and leads to less genetic diversity and genetic diversity has been shown to be a very good thing. As well it ignores the social causes for problems blaming it solely on inherited traits. Sterilising or killing criminals will not salve the problem of crime and sterilising or killing people that has the “wrong” hair color, “wrong” skin color, “wrong” height or any other trivial trait will only weaken the species as a whole. Humans are fallible creatures, just look at what people did to some dog and cat breads.

Creationist propaganda argument #9: Some things are irreducibly complex.
False. The “eye argument” is is a good example of the irreducible complexity argument and those who use it hallways quote Charles Darwin
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
But of course they never finish the quote.
“Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound”
The basic argument is “if you remove one component of the eye than it will no longer function” but thats based on misconception of how evolution works. Evolution works by slow changes, the eye like all body parts evolved through slow changes like every other body part, our ancestors did lack and or did not need components that we have today.