Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools

This is not a response that qualifies as valid. It is what is known as a red herring. That is, it creates a distraction to throw one off the trail so to speak. A pedophile named Kevin as cause for the universe and the other unscientific and illogical assumptions are hardly worth consideration in a bar in an argument between 2 inebriated morons let alone as entries into this debate. Someone advancing these views as worthy of debate would obviously have some issues that need addressed by a psychiatrist as quickly as tenable and have no place in the discussion or debate at hand. The views offered are frivolous explanations and demonstrate the ramblings of an over active and immature imagination rather than valid points of view. The debate was clearly framed as one discussing why or why not should the two most valid points of view to evolution's "it done it all by itself" paradigm as the cause of the universe and life, which is to say Creation or Intelligent Design (ID), should be excluded from the educational curriculum based on the existing scientific evidence. Personally, I prefer Creation but feel that ID also advances valid points based on scientific evidence but does not provide an alternative to evolution itself. Whereas, Creation is up front with the fact that the accepted paradigm for the origin of life is God, a supernatural being. Science does not always point to material causes as the only existing causes of phenomena as in the case of quantum physics, mathematical equations and the laws of logic. ID uses scientific evidence to substantiate its POV but does not defer to God as a Creator. I do. Nevertheless, ID has been advanced in the past and has gained ground in recent years as a valid point of view on the issues of origins of life. Since, neither of the last aforementioned two are included in the curriculum and both can advance scientific evidence that can be used to substantiate their claims, the debate is based on scientific evidence to corroborate their claims to be included in the curriculum versus scientific evidence to support the claims of evolution as a component of the educational curriculum. Science must be used not silly frivolous arguments that are the musings of an individual with an obviously disturbed imagination. After all, this debate is about our educational system being objective and science based, not about silly, frivolous fantasies that obviously have no science behind them. Two factors must be taken into consideration. One, no one was present at our origins so all evidence must be historical in nature. That is to say, where does the evidence point to after consideration of the evidence vs. the claims? No one can substantially claim victory in such a debate since no one was present. However, we can examine the available evidence and based on analogy determine where it points. No one however can actually claim definitive proof since no one was obviously present at the beginning. We can however scientifically agree that the universe did have a beginning whether it be the "Big Bang" or God and speculate based on supporting available scientific evidence as to what that cause may have been. And we can agree that anything with a beginning must have had a cause. Therefore the debate refers to evidence that supports one's cause over the other competing point of view. Two, evidence must be scientific in nature and not based on the bible, one's religious or philosophical points of view such as that of atheism. The conclusions may point to a religion but the evidence used can not and must be scientific in nature.(Of course, some may claim atheism believes in nothing which would therefore eliminate debate since one cannot debate on nothing and also eliminate evolution since evolution is a set of beliefs as well for the same reasons stated above, i.e., no one was present at the origin of life). One can point to God or Big Bangs as possible solutions but the scientific evidence should corroborate the assumption. If a debater is willing to move forward based on those assumptions then I think we can have an intelligent discussion. If not, then I am afraid frivolous, unscientific arguments from disturbed individuals will not be accepted as a substitute and disqualify him or her based on the fact that one must secure their point of view with scientific evidence since this is after all a debate about science in the curriculum, is it not?