Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

Okay, I think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org...) should not be taught as absolute, factual science in American public schools.

To start with, because no reason has been given as to why it should be taught, I will say that when you have no reason to teach something in a public school, it should not be taught.

I would ,first off, like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.

"To start with, because no reason has been given as to why it should be taught, I will say that when you have no reason to teach something in a public school, it should not be taught."

Darwinists have more then enough reason to teach it in schools. How else would you explain humans rationally without resorting to religious ideas? Or what happened before all of thier other history? Where there are questions, there are awnsers.

"Darwinists have more then enough reason to teach it in schools. How else would you explain humans rationally without resorting to religious ideas? Or what happened before all of thier other history? Where there are questions, there are awnsers."
And why can't one resort to religious ideas? Just because schools apparently aren't allowed to teach religion to be true, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to present the possibility of intelligent design. Where there are questions, there are many possible answers. You can't just pick the answer you like the best and call it fact without proving it.

Additionally, the Theory of Evolution is not fact. It is theory. It might be true. It might NOT be true. There is no proof. There is only evidence of possibility. The possibility of other explanations means that evolution is not a set-in-stone-fact as of now, and thus should not be taught as such. They have perfect reason to teach it as theory. They have no reason to teach it as fact.

Thank you.

"Additionally, the Theory of Evolution is not fact. It is theory. It might be true. It might NOT be true."

Alas, you found my favorite creationist tool. I call it "theory, not fact." But here[http://dictionary.reference.com...] it states a thoery is made of facts. The ONLY reason it is still a thoery and not a law is because a law must NEVER be challenged by another idea. We have physical evidence you can hold in the palm of your hand. What do you have?

Alas, you found my favorite creationist tool. I call it "theory, not fact." But here it states a thoery is made of facts. The ONLY reason it is still a thoery and not a law is because a law must NEVER be challenged by another idea. We have physical evidence you can hold in the palm of your hand. What do you have?"

Alas, you have a flaw in your argument. Evolution only has circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence - evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

Circumstantial evidence only gives situations that could be explained by the theory, which, in this case, is evolution. Because Evolution cannot explain how life appeared in the first place, it opens up the possibility of Intelligent Design, which in turn opens up the possibility of life being created exactly how it is now, with all modifications done at the beginning, at the hands of the Intelligent Designer.

Fact - something that has actual existence
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Because it is not set in stone to have actual existence, it is not fact.

More explanation on circumstantial evidence:
http://www.debate.org...
In this debate, it seemed as if it was inevitable that shadeofgrey used crack, due to the substantial circumstantial evidence placed before her, but it appears that she might instead have an anxiety disorder.

Intelligent design has just as many explanations as evolution. The only reason intelligent design is discarded by so many people is because it has religious connections.

In conclusion, evolution is not set in stone, and only has circumstantial evidence, and thus is not fact, and should not be taught as such.

"Intelligent design has just as many explanations as evolution. The only reason intelligent design is discarded by so many people is because it has religious connections."

Not quite. The reason it is discarded by many is because it ignores all other scientific proofs and completely disregaurds the imposibility of a creator beyond our solar system. --Creationists say that the earth is 6000 years old, yet many rock formations are found to be millions of years old.-- Why teach something we know is not true?

I quote from someone's profile "Faith is something you believe when you know it is not so." - Mark Twain.

ID is completely illogical and truely has no proof, whatsoever. In any sense. Unless you count the bible, in which case evolution has thousands of 'proof'

"Not quite. The reason it is discarded by many is because it ignores all other scientific proofs and completely disregaurds the imposibility of a creator beyond our solar system. --Creationists say that the earth is 6000 years old, yet many rock formations are found to be millions of years old.-- Why teach something we know is not true?"
Because you did not come up with any other explanation to why life exists, you conceded that Intelligent Design can in fact be true, and because ID can oppose evolution, evolution is not a set-in-stone fact, and thus should not be taught as absolute fact. Furthermore, about your rock formation thing, in the book "Dinosaurs, the Bible, Barney, and Beyond," it is pointed out:
"The Age of Dinosaurs supposedly spanned the length and breadth of the Mesozoic Era. That era is divided by evolution scientists into three major periods.... Where did those periods and dates originate? In the 1700's, James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed a system of life development that 'predated' known history. The Geologic Column or Geologic Time Scale was produced by Lyell, who also wrote the 'Antiquity of Man', a book in which he conjectured that man as a species was much older than believed at the time. Lyell's system of geological dating was based on what he observed in a nearby formation that showed layers of rocks in stratas. The DATES (such as 225 million years ago) were placed on the column by Lyell as a guess! He did not have evidence to back up his dating on the column, other than his own theory of 'uniformationarianism' that suggested that the earth has experienced a uniform rate of volcanic activity over time, that the earth's atmosphere has remained constant, and that the chemical proportions of the earth have remained the same from the beginning of time to the present. Many people have come to regard the Geological Column as fact. From its outset and remaining to this day, it is a theory." (89-90)

The idea of rock formations being millions of years old is actually based upon a theory that to this day has NOT been proven. Intelligent design still remains an alternative to a 4.5 billion year old universe.

"I quote from someone's profile 'Faith is something you believe when you know it is not so.' - Mark Twain."
It's better to quote the person himself than a profile.
Napoleon is not always right. Well, nor is Mark Twain.

"ID is completely illogical and truely has no proof, whatsoever. In any sense. Unless you count the bible, in which case evolution has thousands of 'proof'"
You say ID is completely illogical, yet you do not say how, and you no longer can, because this round is the last. Furthermore, something doesn't need proof to be possible. Concrete proof is needed to say that something is impossible; concrete proof is also needed to say that something is set-in-stone true. A possibility, however, needs no real proof, only circumstantial proof. "[P]resent populations of humans and animals are consistent with models that show a 'start' from very small reproducing groups less than 10,000 years ago." Boom. Circumstantial evidence. It doesn't prove ID, but proves that it is possible.

Anyways, with your meager response, you have conceded a number of points by not defending them, including:
Circumstantial evidence is not enough to call something a fact.
Anything that is not fact should not be taught in schools.

In conclusion, Darwin's Theory of Evolution only has circumstantial proof, and has been conceded to be unable to be called a fact, and thus has been conceded to be unfit to be taught in schools, which affirms the resolution. Vote PRO. Thank you for this wonderful debate.

Heredity is also theory, not fact. However 7 months ago I took a test on heredity. Nobody plans on removing THAT from schools anytime soon.

ID is completely illogical: a.) Because there is no actual proof of ID or any of your claims you use to 'support' it.

and b.) because "the giant man in the sky told me so." is NOT proof.

"The Age of Dinosaurs supposedly spanned the length and breadth of the Mesozoic Era. That era is divided by evolution scientists into three major periods.... Where did those periods and dates originate? In the 1700's, James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed a system of life development that 'predated' known history. The Geologic Column or Geologic Time Scale was produced by Lyell, who also wrote the 'Antiquity of Man', a book in which he conjectured that man as a species was much older than believed at the time. Lyell's system of geological dating was based on what he observed in a nearby formation that showed layers of rocks in stratas. The DATES (such as 225 million years ago) were placed on the column by Lyell as a guess! He did not have evidence to back up his dating on the column,"

There is a such thing as an educated guess. Look it up, please.

"Napoleon is not always right. Well, nor is Mark Twain"

Nor is the Bible.

This qoute comes to mind "To proove an extraordinary claim, one must need extraordinary evidence." Where is YOUR evidence. All you have done is try to proove me wrong, but not once have you said " ID could be true because we have this... and this..."

"It doesn't prove ID, but proves that it is possible." Actually, it tries to proove evolution wrong, which does not mean ID is prooved possible. And boom goes the dynamite.

"Anything that is not fact should not be taught in schools."

Lalalala! Guess what? ID has no proof! Yet you feel you should teach it in schools.

"In conclusion, Darwin's Theory of Evolution only has circumstantial proof, and has been conceded to be unable to be called a fact, and thus has been conceded to be unfit to be taught in schools, which affirms the resolution"

A theory cannot be just 1 fact, but must, in fact, consist of many. Evolution holds these facts and more. From fossils to bones, to rocks to islands evolution stands tall above ID in any argument, for the big man in the sky made it so.

Thank you for your time.

"And boom goes the dynamite."