Resolved: Intelligent design should be taught in American public schools.

Pro

Addressing the source:

I sincerely hoped to debate my opponent rather than MSNBC. The entire second round of my opponent was
copied from the source. Outside of the first two sentences, the entire body of work belongs to another.
I am not generally a stickler for etiquette but may I insist that my opponent form his/her own arguments?
This is plagiarism at its worst. Who is the author? What is the publishing date? Where is the link to the article?
Is this the entire work in context?

Refuting the source:

1.> Credibility- MSNBC has a history of false reporting. The news outlet consistently twists and
misrepresents the facts. Their reporting on the recent shooting of a teenage boy almost started a
homicidal manhunt. [1] The agency manipulates approval ratings of elected officials. [2] MSNBC
fails to fact check their sources, publishing Huffington Post satire spoofs as real news.[3]
The media company engages in smear campaigns against peaceful protestors. [4] MSNBC poster-child,
Rachel Maddow, consistently lies and fabricates charges against other media outlets. [5] The source
is not to be trusted, unless additional, unaffiliated sources confirm the information.

The Nylon problem seems like a good argument, until we realize that Nylon (although synthetic) is created
from pre-occurring compounds. Nylon is created from petroleum. The bacteria that produce “nylonase”
to digest Nylon are the same bacteria that break down naturally occurring petroleum products. The bacteria
are doing exactly what they always have done, except now they are eating a newer version of the
same old stuff. If I stop eating apples and start eating apple pies, did I evolve? My enzymes and stomach
PH levels need to adjust to digest the pie, so technically, I must have evolved. Nonsense!

It should also be noted that Nylonase is a weaker enzyme than it's predacessor. This loss of
potency, in Darwinian terms, is devistating to continued evolution of this bacteria. It's a
sort of "de-evolution".

In addition, evolution requires sexual reproduction to introduce complexity. Bacteria are asexual.
They essentially clone themselves. Nylonase does not support the evolutionary paradigm.

3.> Getting back on topic – The argument against intelligent design is rooted in fear. Its
opponents are afraid that a theistically conscious population will question, debate and demand
more from secular research than the common “Trust me, I’m a Doctor” answer.

There is a formidable mental prowess to a person with spiritual conviction. This constant search for a
deeper truth inevitably creates a critical skeptic; ironic as it seems. Attempting to convince a
devout Muslim that his forefather is a monkey or indoctrinating a follower of Christ into a “purposeless
creative event” paradigm proves indescribably difficult, no matter how big the bang is.

Yet, before we wonder if intelligent design has a place in the public school, we must first ask:
” Why is it even an issue, unless you’re afraid of something?”

Intelligent design does not threaten medical research. It serves as no barrier in the development of
communications technology. It does not oppose the scientific method and it will not prevent the students
of a high school from grasping mathematics or logical sciences. Many state universities offer a religious
studies program and it has yet to cause the school to lose its accreditation. Adding intelligent design to
elective studies in a high school would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching. It would not force
children to pray and its mere availability does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.

If we did allow intelligent design studies in public schools, it would allow families of professed faith to better
support the school district, since the school district has supported their desire to raise children of faith. It
would also relieve stress on teachers who live a privately faith-centered life. The institution’s willingness
to fire teachers because they mentioned Jesus orMuhammad is flagrantly unconstitutional, especially
since those same teachers are forced to cover Greek mythology in great detail. Talking about Zeus is fine
but Jesus is a problem? Not all professors believe in Darwin. [8] The source states:

"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive,
dishonest, and intellectually myopic."

Over to you Con.




References:

http://alanstock.com... [1]

http://thelasttradition.blogspot.com... [2]

http://www.theblaze.com... [3]

http://americasbestchoice.blogspot.com...
[4]

http://www.theblaze.com...
[5]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6]

http://www.discovery.org...
[7]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [8]