The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

We should not teach the controversy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,704 times Debate No: 23284
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (5)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Resolved: The school systems should not teach creationism along side of evolution. It is my opinion that evolution should be taught.

First round is acceptance.

Definitions

Please no semantics. These are the definitions that I will be talking about in the debate:
  1. Creationism: The literal story of creation as found in Gen. 1 [1]
  2. Evolution: Two types
    1. Microevolution: Microevolution is defined as the change in the alleles of a species over a period of time. [2]
    2. Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.[3]
  3. Teach the controversy: By this, I mean that the literal interpretation of Gen. 1 should be taugh along side of the ToE.

Rules
  1. First round is acceptance only;
  2. No semantics (see above);
  3. Plagarism results in an automatic 7 points to the opponent


_________________________________

1. For the literal reading of Genesis, read it online at http://www.esvbible.org...;

2. Talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org...

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;

GenesisCreation

Con

I accept the resolution as presented. I will defend the position that Creationism should be taught along side evolution.

Since Creationism is defined only as the "Literal Story of Creation as found in Genesis", I will not have the burden of defending Creation Science or associated apologetics.

Thank you Pro for furnishing the resolution. I look forward to a fun, respectful exchange of ideas.

Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

I wish to thank the team from Genesis Creation for accepting this debate. I argue that we should not teach the controversy in schools. I argue that evolution should be taught because evolution is falsifiable and is a fact; however, we should not teach creation because it is not science.

While my partner accepted this debate, I was adding a few definitions that we should take note of.

  1. A theory is a well-supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments, and explains them in a coherent way.[1]
  2. Secondly, as far as teaching the controversy, this refers to teaching Gen. 1 as defined in d1 I provided in round 1. Moreover, it also infers that this is being taught as fact in the science class; not something that is mere mythology in mythology class.



Note: This argument uses a lot of footnotes. Please read the footnotes

  1. 1. Schools should teach facts.
  2. 2. Evolution is a fact
  3. 3. Therefore, schools should teach evolution diseases


P1) SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH FACTS

The jobs of the schools is to teach facts, not some theories. For example, do we want schools to teach the flat earth controversy along side of the spherical earth controversy in order to 'respect' the flat earthers?[2] Should we teach in history class that the holocaust is a conspiracy made up by a ton of Zionists in order to make the Jewish haters happy?[3] Or perhaps in medical class, we should have a 3 week unit teaching exorcism and the "fact" that demons, not bacteria cause

diseases.[4]

What I am arguing is that the above examples are rightfully absurd. We should not teach that the earth is flat because we know that it is not. We should not teach that the holocaust is a conspiracy because there is too much evidence for the contrary. We should not teach medical students exorcism and the theory that demons cause diseases because we know they are caused by bacterium. Likewise, we should teach evolution for the same reason: It is a fact.

P2) EVOLUTION IS A FACT

Evolution is the backbone of biology. In this premise, I will argue why evolution is a fact and provide evidence for the ToE.

A. PREDICTIONS MADE BY EVOLUTION

Science is all about predictions. These predictions do not necessarily have to be what is going to happen in the future; but they can refer to what has happened in the past. In any case, evolution has been the basis for predictions which have sense came true.

  1. 1. In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig’s fetal development, parts of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. Later, it was predicted that we should see a transitional fossil of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. We call thi development, parts of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. Later, it was predicted that we should see a transitional fossil of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. We call this the cynodont therapsids.[5]
  2. 2. Most animals make vitamin c in their bodies; however, humans cannot do this. Consequently, it was predicted that humans have descended from creatures that could, and that we have lost this ability. When we have studied human DNA, we have found a gene which is like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats; however, we have been turned off.[6]
  3. 3. All great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes except for humans—we have 23 pairs. What happened to this? Ken Miller[7] notes that humans have a fused chromosome—that is chromosome number 2. We know this from studying the genomes in human Chromosomes which point to the fact that human chromosome 2 is indeed fused. This is a prediction that has been made by evolution; and a confirmation of the occurrences of evolution.

I am out of room. I’ll give more in the next round.



[1] Fairbanks, Daniel J. "What Is Evolution?" Evolving: The Human Effect and Why It Matters. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012. 16. Print.

[2]Believe it or not, there are people who believe that the earth is flat. This society of people is called the "Flat earth society" who believe that the earth is flat! http://theflatearthsociety.org...;

[3]In fact, there are more scientists that deny the holocaust than deny evolution. This point; however, is irrelavent. For more on holocaust denial see http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[4]. In the ancient world, it was once thought that diseases were caused by demonds. The bible attests to this fact and has Jesus and the other disciples healing a lot of people via exorcism. Moreover, people today believe that demons do haunt and hurt people to this very day http://www.tbm.org...;Hadith teaches that fever is from hell fire:

I used to sit with Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca. Once I had a fever and he said (to me), "Cool your fever with Zam-zam water, for Allah's Apostle said: 'It, (the Fever) is from the heat of the (Hell) Fire; so, cool it with water (or Zam-zam water)." Volume 4, Book 54, Number 483, Narrated Abu Jamra Ad-Dabi.


For more on the Qur'an and Medicine, see http://carm.org...;

[7] See Ken Miller’s lecture on Chromosome 2

GenesisCreation

Con

"Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution."

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry
-----------------------------------------------------------



Thank you Pro for the excellent and well written opening argument. I argue that Darwinian Macro-evolution requires further scrutiny. I also argue that the Genesis account of creation has a place in the public school.

Point 1 - Evolution is a theory:

As per every accredited scientific journal and major University, Evolution is a theory:

Scientific American, as of 2009, calls evolution a theory. [1]

Harvard University began a 2005 research project on the theory of evolution. [2]

The University of Sussex published it's 1993 3rd edition text on the theory of evolution, which is still being used today at Cambridge University. [3]

Edinburgh University, the University of East London, The center for Philosophy and Natural and Social science, the England Department of Zoology and Oxford University call evolution a theory, as of 2011. [4]

Yale University, as of 2012, calls evolution a theory. [5]

The Biology Publication, American Naturalist, calls Evolution a theory. [6]

 

In fact, the following Scientific Journals call evolution a theory:

Biological Reviews, BioEssays, Biophysical Journal, Cell, Journal of Cell Biology, International Journal of Biological Sciences, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Journal of Molecular Biology, PLoS Biology, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Biochemical Journal, Biophysical Journal, European Journal of Biochemistry, FEBS Journal, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry, Journal of Molecular Biology,Xenobiotica, American Journal of Botany, Annals of Botany, International Journal of Plant Sciences, New Phytologist, Advances in Ecological Research, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Ecology, Ecology Letters, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Bosque, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Genetica, Genetics, Heredity, Journal of Genetics, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Journal of Applied Horticulture, Rangifer (journal), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Developmental Science, Genes, Brain and Behavior, Journal of Neurochemistry, Journal of Neurophysiology, Journal of Neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience,Neuron, Trends in Neurosciences , Journal of Zoology, Zoology, Zootaxa.


----------------------------------------------------------------
 

Point 2- Not every scientist accepts the Darwinian Paradigm. The Organization, "Dissent from Darwin", boast a 20 page list of scientist that object to the Darwinian Paradigm. The organizational mission statement is: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list can be downloaded here:

http://www.discovery.org...

 

Point 3- Creationism does not conflict with current law:

The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) concluded that, "it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be affected consistently with the First Amendment." [7]

In the case of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), The Supreme Court ruled that "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."

Point 4- Creationism can be provided as a non-invasive elective course:

It's mere availability will not force students to pray.

Creationism can be provided as an elective study, making it a by-choice credit.

Introducing Genesis studies would allow religious households to better support the school district, since the school district is supporting their choice to raise children of faith.

Teachers no longer need to fear reprisal or wrongful termination, for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad.

If a student declines the course, it would not prevent him/her from graduating.

Providing Creationism as a course would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching.

 

Conclusion:

Evolution is a theory (point 1), preventing it from exclusive claim to absolute knowledge and truth. It is and must continue to be scrutinized. The "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" answer is not enough.

Even in secular circles, Evolution is not universally accepted (point 2). The mere fact that proved, respected names in science demand a closer look should be enough. Ignoring the dispute is akin to an Ostrich with it's head in the sand.

The United States Government will support the public school if it decides to make Creation available as a course (point 3).

The mere availability of Creationism does not threaten evolutionary teaching in the High school (point 4). Somehow my opponent is convinced that the showdown between evolution and creation must be like the Highlander. There can be only one? I find it dangerous to give absolute ground to either side.
"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic." [8]



-------------------------------------------
Sources:
 
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

I wish to thank my partner for his swift opening argument. Unfortunately, he has made several critical errors that I wish to expose in this round. I wish you the best of luck.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 



POINT 1: EVOLUTION IS A THEORY

A. THE DEFINITION OF A THEORY

To say that one rejects evolution because it is "only a theory" is rightfully absurd. Let's review the definition of the word "theory."

A theory is a well-supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments, and explains them in a coherent way.[1] (Emphasis mine).

In fact, I honestly do not even understand this absurd argument. I wonder if my partner even looked at the links that he even gave. Let's look at Scientific American 2009 that calls evolution a theory:

"The January 2009 edition of Scientific American focuses on Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, how the theory has evolved and its powerful, far-reaching ability to explain the natural world. Following are links to the articles in this issue:..."[2]

Although evolution IS a theory; that is no reason to reject such a theory. On the other hand, if it was called the hypothesis of evolution, my partner will have a coherent argument.

B. IT'S A THEORY AND A FACT

Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact. But before I prove that evolution is a fact, let's look at some of the other scientific facts that are "only a theory":

  1. The atomic theory - The field of physics that describes the characteristics and properties of atoms that make up matter. [3]
  2. The germ theory of disease - A theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. At first it was controversial, though now it is the foundations of modern medicine. [4]

You see, to reject these well supported theories on the basis that they are only a theory is rightfully absurd.

Now, let's explore some of the facts of evolution. Laurence Moran notes:

"When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming." [5]

Biologist Stephen Gould notes:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[6]

I already provided evidence in my opening argument supporting evolution to be a fact. I will expand more in this round later on.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

Point 2- Not every scientist accepts the Darwinian Paradigm.

"One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on. "[7]

This is simply an appeal to authority.

Next point, the NCSE recently instituted “Project Steve.” In this project, NCSE announced an invitation for scientists whose first name is Steve (or any variants of that) to submit them affirming evolution. As of today, it has over 1200 signers compared to the 800 for the discovery institute. [8]


---------------------------------------------------------------- 

Point 3- Creationism does not conflict with current law:


First, just because something is legal, does not mean that it should be done or that it is logical. This is called an appeal to authority.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

Point 4 – Creationism as an elective

This is simply an attempt at semantics. In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE. In other words, it would be required to learn both.





[1] Fairbanks, Daniel J. "What Is Evolution?" Evolving: The Human Effect and Why It Matters. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012. 16. Print.

[2] http://smu.edu...;

[3] http://abyss.uoregon.edu....

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[6] http://www.stephenjaygould.org...;

[7] http://www.talkorigins.org...;

[8] For more on Project Steve, see http://ncse.com...

GenesisCreation

Con

"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science." Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry


Pro Said: "Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact."

Rebuttal: As per the online dictionary, fact is defined as a verifiable truth, or reality. [3]
The associated thesaurus lists "fact" as an antonym to theory. [4] Theory and fact are intrinsic opposites, by definition alone. This is not semantics, this is an established reality. It is a fact (No pun intended). The word "theory" is synonymous with: Scheme,Suspicion, Conjecture,Dogma,Impression,Guess,Feeling and Assumption. Calling it anything else is manipulation, nay, semantics.

Conclusion: In round two I established that evolution is a theory by providing a massive list of secular authorities that define it as such. My opponent has not only failed to reject my argument, he stands in agreement with it. As quoted from round three:"Although evolution IS a theory; that is no reason to reject such a theory."

Dear opponent, it is not my burden to reject evolution. You object to ghost arguments. My burden is to establish reasonable doubt on your established resolution that evolution has exclusive right to the classroom. Nobody in this debate has attempted to remove evolution from the schools. I simply desire a fair exchange of ideas in the public education arena. Even your very biased sources claim: "Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." [Round 3, Opponent Source 6] While we clearly differ in opinion on this "fact" that Mr. Gould is attempting to establish, I would agree that a debate on rival theories should be encouraged in the classroom, much like you've agreed to in this public setting.



Pro established: Point 2 - Project Steven


Rebuttal: As per the Social Security administration, one in ten boys born in the 1960s was named Steven [1], making roughly 10% of all 50 year old U.S. Doctors a "Steven". Today, that name is assigned to 1,137,990 people, making it the 18th most popular name in this country [2].

Had this project been called Solomon, Markus, Darius, Vaughn, Roland or Raphael then the purpose of this study would have utterly failed. Project Steven does not reflect the true following of evolutionary thinking. It establishes the commonality of a single name. It's a manipulated data-set. This kind of pseudo-science has saturated the evolutionary paradigm for decades. Manipulation of data, withholding evidence or sheer lying has established evolution as a corrupt, dishonest paradigm.
Consider, if I established a Project Robert, over 25 names could be pulled from the Dissent from Darwin list alone. If I established a project Jesus Christ the Nazarene, I would win 100% of all available names to my case and proudly proclaim "everyone believes in creation". This is not science, it's a disingenuous manipulation of data.

Conclusion: Project Steve enlisted .001% of all US Stevens to sign their list. What do the other 99.999% think? The project is flagrantly boasting a minority vote. What a confusing proclamation for the rational observer. Is this project design to aid or injure your case?



Pro established Point 3- "An Appeal to authority..."

Rebuttal: Absolutely. Any attempt to indoctrinate my children to a single point of view will be met with legal action. I am not the "picket sign" Christian that condemns you to hell. I trust the sufficiency of the Gospel to do it's work. I simply desire that my children get access to my world view in the classroom. Sending me to a private, Christian academy is not the answer. I barely make enough money to pay the bills. Legal action, or "an appeal to authority" is an absolute requirement. No court case concerning this subject was ever void of secular defense. Your side invokes legal action with matched fervor. It is hypocrisy to deny me my day in court.

Indoctrinate - to teach systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically


Pro said- Allowing creationism as an elective "is simply an attempt at semantics. In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE. In other words, it would be required to learn both."


Rebuttal: My opponent plays semantics by the same token. The resolution's active word is "should", not "will". If you read the above quote and compare it to the actual round one definition, you'll see that an elective study credit is within the guidelines of the debate rule. It is such a reasonable suggestion, that my opponent had no choice but to amend the rules. Again, this plays in to the deceptive nature of evolutionist morality.

Actual Round one statement: Teach the controversy: By this, I mean that the literal interpretation of Gen. 1 should be taught along side of the ToE.

Manipulated re-quote: In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE.

Conclusion: By my opponents own defined rule, he has broken the conduct established in round one. No Semantics. This is clear evidence that Pro would rather play word games than meet me on a level playing field. Suppression through manipulation. Any unbiased observer must account for this clear breach in conduct.




For your review, a few scientific conclusions from the Genesis world view:

1.> Geology - The oldest desert must be fairly young, due to a global submersion of flood water.

Fact:
The Sahara Desert is less than 4,400 years old [5]. The Nambi desert, once dated at 55 million years, was recently redated using ground penetrating radar. As per the Geology Association of America, the oldest sand layer in no more than 5,700 years old. [6]

2.> Anthropology - If the earth flooded, as described in Genesis, then some remnant lore must exist.

Fact: 35 such stories exist and their similarities are fascinating. How can these stories be that similar, yet be separated by several thousand miles (including oceans).[7]

3.>Biology - Unique biological constructs must exist with no obvious predecessor.

Fact- Mimic Plants have no evolutionary predecessor.

The Carrion flower emits the smell of rotten flesh and dung to attract dung beetles [8]. The symbiosis requires a gradual, evolutionary stepladder. In fact, both species must have evolved side-by-side for millions of years in unchanged climates to establish this relationship. It is literally impossible.

The Bee orchid mimics a bee with such accuracy that a male bee will attempt to mate with the flower, thus pollinating the species [8]. What is this flower's predecessor? Perhaps the spider orchid, which assumes a similar role, yet with a different insect altogether.
By any measure of logic, these plants are designed. Evolution cannot account for this brilliant symbiosis. The Bible can.

Conclusion: Just these three examples show that predictions can be made from the Biblical world view. It does not establish proof or fact, yet it is scientifically sound and deserving of the same scrutiny as evolutionary sciences.



http://www.ssa.gov...;[1]

http://names.mongabay.com... [2]

http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]

http://thesaurus.com... [4]

http://geology.gsapubs.org...; [5]

http://www.freechristianteaching.org... [6]

http://www.nwcreation.net... [7]

http://www.google.com...; [8]
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

I’d like to thank my partner once again for an intriguing debate.

“"We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between physically indistinguishable sibling species of fruit flies." Elizabeth J. Bruce and Francisco J. Ayala “Humans and Apes are Genetically Very Similar,” Nature 276:264, Nov. 16, 1978

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” “Put Your Money on Evolution” The New York Times (April 9, 1989) section VII p.35

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips... continue the list as long as desired.” Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth. p.8

Ok, so we are back on track debating whether or not Creationism should be taught on school grounds in the same manner as evolution. Let’s review some of our key points:

KEY POINTS FROM PRO

  1. 1. Evolution is an undeniable fact
  2. 2. Schools ought to teach facts
  3. 3. Creationism is unverifiable and therefore not science.

KEY POINTS FROM CON

  1. 1. Evolution is only a theory
  2. 2. Not every scientists believes in evolution
  3. 3. Creationism does not conflict with the current laws
  4. 4. Creationism can be taught freely as an elective.

Note to con: Please forgive me if I misrepresented any of your positions. If the above is incorrect, please correct it.

PRO’S POINTS

In round 1, I gave some overwhelming evidence for evolution, and if time permits, will expand on that and bring up more evidence as well. My partner hasn’t disputed any of my points. If I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact, then there is no reason to teach the controversy in the same way we shouldn’t teach the holocaust never happened to be “fair” to the students with parents that differ.

CON’S POINTS

CONTENTION 1: EVOLUTION IS (ONLY) A THEORY

A. DEFINITION OF A THEORY

Although in everyday language, a theory is used to refer to a hypothesis or an educated guess, we are talking about science. Therefore, we would like to keep with the scientific definitions. Remember, the rules were no semantics. I CLEARLY defined a theory in the first round of arguments. Consequently, you are playing semantics. I will gladly accept your definition of a fact as a verifiable truth or reality. Likewise, the NCSE points out that “in science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”[1]

So, how does one determine whether something is or is not a fact? In science, we do repeated experience, repeated observations, and repeated predictions that all point to the conclusions. Based upon the evidence, we draw our conclusions. Here are a few illustrations demonstrating this:

Based upon this, what facts do we have to prove evolution is more than a theory? I’ll explain later on in the round.

B. A FACT AND A THEORY

My partner has yet to refute anything from the evidence for evolution. Consequently, it is safe to say that he is conceding that evolution IS a fact; although it is also a theory. It is possible for a statement to be a theory and a fact. We do it all the time in the Atomic Theory and the Germ Theory of Disease. This is no reason to reject evolution.

CONTENTION 2: REJECTION OF EVOLUTION BY SCIENTISTS

A. PROJECT STEVE

My partner has utterly failed to understand the point. From NCSE website, “Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution.”[2]

The point I’m trying to make here is that just because someone who is a scientist affirms or denies evolution, does not falsify evolution nor does it mean that we should totally reject evolutionism in the science class. Remember, evolution is the backbone of biology—without the ToE, we cannot fully comprehend biology.

Ok, so let’s talk about real statistics here without something like what my partner’s project and what my project has done. According to estimates done by the National Academy of Science, only .015% of relevant scientists reject evolution.[3]

CONTENTION 3: CREATIONISM DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT LAW

A. The fallacy

I pointed out that he has committed the appeal to authority and my partner flat out agreed that it was a fallacy! I gotta love this quote, it may go on my wall of fail:

Any attempt to indoctrinate my children to a single point of view will be met with legal action. I am not the "picket sign" Christian that condemns you to hell. I trust the sufficiency of the Gospel to do it's work. I simply desire that my children get access to my world view in the classroom. Sending me to a private, Christian academy is not the answer. I barely make enough money to pay the bills. Legal action, or "an appeal to authority" is an absolute requirement. No court case concerning this subject was ever void of secular defense. Your side invokes legal action with matched fervor. It is hypocrisy to deny me my day in court.

Anyways, this is wrong in so many ways. Although I agree that any attempt at indoctrinating our children should be met with legal action, why then shouldn’t we teach the controversy for all subjects; namely, that the holocaust never happened and that it was a Jewish conspiracy; the earth is flat and NASA wants to hide it from us; and any other nut crazy idea out there. Likewise, the way you defined indoctrination as “teaching systematically to accept doctrines, esp. uncritically” is exactly what creationism is! Creationism is UNVERIFIABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE unlike evolution which is both!

CONCLUSIONS

MY partner dropped all of my arguments and has not responded to my proofs for evolution. Therefore, one may insist on this syllogism:

  1. 1. Schools ought to teach facts.
  2. 2. Evolution is a fact
  3. 3. Therefore, schools ought to teach creationism.
  4. 4. Creationism is unverifiable, not science, and not a fact.
  5. 5. Therefore, we should not teach Creationism.

Case closed. Vote pro.



[1] "Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | NCSE." Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | NCSE. National Academy of Science. Web. 05 May 2012. <http://ncse.com...;.

[2] "Project Steve | NCSE." Project Steve | NCSE. National Academy of Science. Web. 05 May 2012. <http://ncse.com...;.

[3] By relevant scientists, we are referring to biologist. For more, see http://www.nap.edu...

GenesisCreation

Con

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

I would like to thank Microsuck for furnishing the resolution
and the reader for sifting through this rather dry and long-winded debate.

Closing Arguments:

1.> For the past three rounds, my opponent has attempted to convince the reader that
evolution is a fact.

Yet I have provided six non-christian sources which define evolution as a theory. I supplied a list
of over 55 journals and scientific publications which describe evolution as a
theory. I have delivered direct quotes from four field experts and I have shown
you over 800 names of highly capable, reasonably intelligent experts who
question the Darwinian paradigm. I submit that evolution is not only a theory,
it could not be a fact if 800 PHDs question it’s merit. A fact must be
universal, beyond doubt, verifiable, repeatable and observable. Evolution is a
theory and it does not have exclusive access to truth in origins. Period.

POINT 1 REFUTED.
------------------------------------------------------------

2.> My opponent has defined my appeal to
authority as a “fail”. He likened creationism to denying the holocaust, as if
anyone who questions Darwin is automatically an idiot.

That’s quite literally the most insulting set of remarks I’ve encountered so far.
Essentially, my opponent has decided to attack my intelligence, my religious
affiliation and my character, rather than attacking creationism. He claims that
I am an indoctrinator, yet I am willing to share the classroom with evolution.
I have never demanded that evolution be removed, I have never insisted that
evolutionists are stupid and I have never claimed that evolution lacks total
scientific merit. I only established that evolution is not absolute and
requires further scrutiny. My position can only be defined as compromising and open
minded. My opponent, on the other hand, is calling for flagrant indoctrination.

POINT 2 REFUTED.


----------------------------------------------------------------

3.> My opponent was
tasked with debunking the merit of creationism. How else could he
justify why evolution has exclusive access to the public school system?
Interestingly, he never once attacks a single verse in the Bible, nor does he
directly question a single creationist theory. I had zero opposition!

His singular objection is that creationism is not
falsifiable, yet he provides zero examples. Should we believe him simply
because he used an exclamation point at the end of his rhetoric? I gave him a
list of three scientific predictions made by the Biblical world view. He
failed to even acknowledge them
, yet he claims it’s not falsifiable.

I literally had to spend zero time defending creationism. I was allowed to continuously attack
evolution and I was met with minimal resistance. He provided a few semantic
hurdles, at the end of which, evolution is still a theory.

CREATIONISM STANDS UNCHALLENGED.

Conclusion:

My opponent calls evolution a fact and I refute it with nearly a thousand verifiable sources.

My opponent claims creationism is not a science, yet he
failed to provide a single case study. In fact, he ignored the three simple
evidences I provided, which anyone of scientific merit could argue full of
holes. He touched neither the Geology, nor Biology, nor Anthropology. If
Creationism is not a science, then you should have no problem dismantling it’s
reasoning.

My opponent had the burden to explain why creation doesn’t
belong in the class. Not only did he fail his task, he never even began an argument
against it. Pro’s entire debate consisted of him shielding his burden from a
constant onslaught of relevant sources and arguments. Pro ignored his burden
and completely derailed.

The resolution was about why creationism should not be taught.
He spent four rounds trying explaining why evolution was a fact.

Even then, he failed.

I humbly request, vote CON.

Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
mecap, You're not reading my argument. My opponent treated the source as legitimate. We're not discussing what the source calls itself! We're discussing what Micro called the source and how he used it. You're a manipulator...and honestly, you've taken enough of my time. Why don't you take 5 minutes to construct the last word, since you're clearly trying to have it, and then vanish for a while. You're like an exhausting child. "But...but...but..."
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
@GenesisCreation
"Microsuck did not present the evidence as a parody, he presented it as a source argument."
-- Apparently, even as you're quoting Pro and the last thing you have in the quote is the reference [8], it doesn't seem like you have looked at it. If you did, you would have seen that in the very first sentence from the source it CLEARLY says that "'Project Steve' is a tongue-in-cheeck parody..."

The point of a parody (e.g. reductio ad absurdum) is that it shows the absurdity of the original claim and it's an acceptable counter-argument. Saying that it was presented as a source argument rather than parody is a non-sequitur: it's equivalent to asking a reference to a proof by contradiction not to be presented as a source argument but as proof by contradiction... the source is for a reason: READ IT!

And where did I say that I found it fitting? Face-palm yourself some more. To be honest, I didn't see the Dawkins quote while reading the closing arguments, but if I did I would have thought twice about the conduct point. In the other debate ("The moral argument for the existence of God is sound") I had penalized Reason_Alliance for plagiarizing, but he admitted that he plagiarized and apologized so I adjusted my vote accordingly. If I was approached in a civil way here, I would have considered doing the same for this vote too, but that didn't happen so if we're going to play that game then I'll play along.

If you want to play the name calling game, then I can play that too...
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
@GenesisCreation
"Microsuck did not present the evidence as a parody, he presented it as a source argument."
-- Apparently, even as you're quoting Pro and the last thing you have in the quote is the reference [8], it doesn't seem like you have looked at it. If you did, you would have seen that in the very first sentence from the source it CLEARLY says that "'Project Steve' is a tongue-in-cheeck parody..."

The point of a parody (e.g. reductio ad absurdum) is that it shows the absurdity of the original claim and it's an acceptable counter-argument. Saying that it was presented as a source argument rather than parody is a non-sequitur: it's equivalent to asking a reference to a proof by contradiction not to be presented as a source argument but as proof by contradiction... the source is for a reason: READ IT!

And where did I say that I found it fitting? Face-palm yourself some more. To be honest, I didn't see the Dawkins quote while reading the closing arguments, but if I did I would have thought twice about the conduct point. In the other debate ("The moral argument for the existence of God is sound") I had penalized Reason_Alliance for plagiarizing, but he admitted that he plagiarized and apologized so I adjusted my vote accordingly. If I was approached in a civil way here, I would have considered doing the same for this vote too, but that didn't happen so if we're going to play that game then I'll play along.

If you want to play the name calling game, then I can play that too...
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
@Gileandos,
I appreciate the support. Discrediting the project in this manner happened by pure accident. I almost took a different approach but a hunch told me to check the commonality.

I found the study heavily manipulated. It would be similar if I passed a petition around the American South-East to gauge the global attendance to Baptist services. They looked for a vast population source (and still only gained an estimated .001% of all U.S. Stevens). If this was a marketing campaign, they would have lost all their money. :-)
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
@GenesisCreation,
I, as stated in my RFD, found the Project Steve to be evidence of a consensus amongst scientists about evolution since its inception to today. I have never seen it used as a parody in my debates.

You single handedly have confirmed for me it is a work of PURE bias. I was completely unaware that Steve was such a common name. I thought it was always just a name pulled out of a hat. I humbly thank you for this new found information.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
@mecap,
Your argument fails terribly in light of Microsuck's quote:

" Next point, the NCSE recently instituted "Project Steve." In this project, NCSE announced an invitation for scientists whose first name is Steve (or any variants of that) to submit them affirming evolution. As of today, it has over 1200 signers compared to the 800 for the discovery institute. [8] "

Microsuck did not present the evidence as a parody, he presented it as a source argument.

Now, may like that Dawkins quote but you immediately illuminate your bias with that admission. Here's a logic lesson for you:
You flagrantly ignored the character attack because you "found it fitting" (face-palm) and granted conduct to Micro without merit. Let me be the first to stop hiding my true feelings. You're an idiot.

You should probably stop responding right about now, thanks!
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
I find that the quote from Dawkins is quite fitting, given your response!

"How is it absurd to call it flawed pseudo-science, when you just called it a parody?"
-- Because it was never meant to be a scientific study and it was never claimed to be one... even the NCSE states:
"NCSE's 'Project Steve' is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of 'scientists who doubt evolution' or 'scientists who dissent from Darwinism.'"

To suggest that the NCSE is putting this forward as a scientific study (which Con did) and then to go ahead and call it pseudo-science in an effort to discredit actual scientific studies is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST! You should probably stop responding right about now, thanks!
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
Insult -
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Broken Rule -
Actual Round one statement: Teach the controversy: By this, I mean that the literal interpretation of Gen. 1 "should" be taught along side of the ToE.

Manipulated re-quote: In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism "will" be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE.

Then you proceed to justify the following:
"Pro also also presented the Project Steve reference and Con simply failed to understand the parody offered by Project Steve. (If it was a parody then Con was correct to refute it as invalid)

Con also claimed that the "study" is flawed, it doesn't reflect on evolutionary thinking and it's flawed to the point that it's pseudo-science. I find that to be absurd to the n-th degree, Project Steve is not a scientific study, it was a simple parody" (How is it absurd to call it flawed pseudo-science, when you just called it a parody?)

Buddy....I'm gonna stop responding to you. You're not only wrong, biased and unfair....you're a sandwhich short of a picnic.
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
I have given detailed justification for my votes and I've voted for Microsuck twice! That's hardly "tossing" my votes. He has had over 22 debates, but I'm starting to wonder if your accusations lead back to something you're doing.
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
Well, apparently YOU ARE voting based on your bias... the alleged insult is apparently based on the fact that Pro pointed out that "Descent from Darwinism" has less people descending than "Descent from Holocaust". Pro also also presented the Project Steve reference and Con simply failed to understand the parody offered by Project Steve. Con also claimed that the "study" is flawed, it doesn't reflect on evolutionary thinking and it's flawed to the point that it's pseudo-science. I find that to be absurd to the n-th degree, Project Steve is not a scientific study, it was a simple parody to counter the absurd notion that finding a few hundred people who claim to "descent from Darwinism" is some kind of a valid argument against evolution.

It's apparent to me that you have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be intellectually honest and you continue to propagate the common intellectual dishonesty that you have been indoctrinated with.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
MicrosuckGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: To get a deeper source, take a look at the comments. Basically, this debate involved two debators among which Pro did not present cases as solid [enough] points while Con persisted in his supports, so arguments to Con. The spelling and conduct were around the same for both, but Con has a bit better source use and citing that did Pro because of the connection between the sources and reasons that were also used to refute Pro's points.
Vote Placed by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
MicrosuckGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter mecap.
Vote Placed by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
MicrosuckGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used common fallacies such as "evolution is (just) a theory" and he cited the "Descent from Darwinism" as evidence that some scientists disagree with evolution (many of those on the list don't even have a relevant degree). Creationism is not even a testable hypothesis, let alone a competing scientific theory to evolution.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
MicrosuckGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely won this debate. He had the stronger arguments as to why the literal interpretation of Genesis should be taught in public school. Conduct to Con for Pro's breaking his own rules and use of ad hominem attacks in his last round.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
MicrosuckGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for full RFD. Arguments were to Con as Pro never detracted from Creationism as the BoP demands: Sources clearly to Con due to R1 alone, but follow sources from Pro were very weak: Conduct indubitably to Con due to Pro clearly misquoting, ad hominem attacks via fallacious appeals to authority: