Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

Thanks Pro for that response.1. Creationism and ScienceI had mentioned that creationism isn't science, because science is the study and explanation of natural phenomena by natural processes, while creationism, by definition in this debate, is a belief that life originated "rather than by natural processes such as evolution."So, then Pro says:"creationism...is meant to explain why these natural process exist."My response:The AGREED definition of creationism clearly states "rather than by natural processes."So, here's what Pro said:"The belief that living organisms originate rather than by natural processes is meant to explain why these natural processes exist."Really, Pro?Creationism is a belief that exists in opposition to natural processes AND it also explains why these natural processes exist? Bogus.Pro, if creationism claims that life originated RATHER THAN BY NATURAL PROCESSES, how does that then explain those natural processes?Oh and I don't give a crap about what Kepler said about science and god; I don't just listen to scientists; I listen to evidence, and merely quoting Kepler to show that creationism is science is some whack appeal to authority, which I find silly here.2. Cars evolve?Pro had originally said:"The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils."My response:Nope.While fossils do an amazing job of classifying animals and proving evolution, the main evidence is in fact the genetic evidence that CONFIRMS the homology of inherited structures from ancestors.Pro then says:"The clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought...for instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps."My response:The problem with this analogy is that ships don't make other ships, airplanes don't reproduce airplanes, and, in fact, each and every car that is created doesn't require any previous car's existence.Organisms are ONLY reproduced by organisms that precede them, so unlike designed automobiles, organisms descend from other organisms, and this is where their characteristics come from, which speaks to descent with modification.ALL characteristics of an automobile are added by an external, non-genetically related agent.Organisms descend from genetically related agents.So, the way that we've classified living things, like vertebrates and tetrapods, has been done by inherited homologous structures indicated by fossil and genetic evidence.Hey Pro, if I put a car engine inside of an airplane, is it still an airplane?What if I add wings to a car, is it still a car?Where's creationism's line between cars and non cars and how does it relate to organisms' genetic relationships within their taxonomic rank?You see, this type of ambiguity doesn't exist in evolutionary/phylogenetic organizations of life, because if an organism can genetically reproduce viable offspring with another organism, they are in the same species.If an organism's genetics have genetic remnants of their ancestors, which is predicted by the homology in their anatomic structures, we can make a greater classification that has that organism with other organisms who have inherited these similar structures from similar organisms.Human designs don't genetically descend from their predecessors; organisms ONLY can descend genetically from predecessors, so nested hierarchy only makes sense with genetic DESCENT, which isn't the case with human mechanical creations or creationism.3. What's a mystery?According to Pro:" A mystery is "something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain" My response:Ok.Pro adds:"Well...a divine agent would do things supernaturally so NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION for creation is really necessary."My response:Hey Pro, what's the difference between something that has no mechanistic explanation and a mystery?Pro would have us believe that lacking a mechanistic explanation isn't a mystery, and that god is only a mystery to me.Pro, save yourself right now and simply explain HOW god created life to remove the mystery of your divine agent's actions and existence; without an explanation, we still have a mystery as Pro defined.4. Common Ancestry is conceded by Pro.Pro admits:"Yes, there is the evidence of the fossils and it can support a common ancestor."My response:Ok, so because we know that all organisms descend from pre-existing organisms, Pro conceding common ancestry's proof in the fossils is a concession of genetic common descent rather than descent by a common creator; this is a pretty major concession by Pro.5. Creationism's agreed definition.Pro ignores the definitions in this debate:"Creationism acknowledges that species change as time goes on...accounting for the biodiversity in life."My response:The definitions have creationism as "rather than by natural processes such as EVOLUTION" yet Pro claims that species change as time goes on; sounds like evolution to me.Hey Pro, what way exists "rather than by natural processes such as evolution" that allows for species to change as time goes on?Even if you want to claim the stupid "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't" argument, both micro and macro evolution satisfy evolution's definition in this debate, which means Pro concedes that evolution occurs, which is not the position he agreed to defend; rather than evolution CANNOT include evolution.Also Pro, can you explain the specific act of divinity, per the definition of creationism, that allowed for these changes that you agree take place?Again, without a mechanistic explanation, we are left in the dark with your mysterious life-creating divinity and its actions.And if Pro agrees that these changes happen by natural processes, Pro is no longer defending creationism for a biology curriculum, instead Pro is affirming that evolution occurs as predicted.So, as I had mentioned, in round 2, creationism does a disservice to our students by "explaining that the differences in organisms were created that way."Pro has a problem with this and says:"[the] creationism perspective does no such thing...creationism teaches that [these] differences were there because they were designed that way."My response:Pro, come on man!According to Pro, creationism doesn't teach that the differences in organisms were created that way, but it does teach that the differences were designed that way?Bogus.How can we teach equally that the differences between organisms happened by specific acts of divinity, rather than by natural processes such as evolution, AND continue to teach that these differences happened by natural processes such as evolution?This should frustrate anyone who has agreed to the definitions of this debate.Pro continues to distort:"These two species [crab and spider] do not have to have come from the same ancestor.My response:Then why did Pro say, "the evidence of the fossils can support a common ancestor?"Why does the evidence of fossils for crabs and spiders not support a common ancestor in this case Pro?The evidence I provided shows such.You already agreed that the fossil evidence indicates this, so why the inconsistency Pro?6. Evidence needs not my assumptions.Evolution explains ape-->human, for example, without my assumptions.Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.Chromosomes, made of two identical chromatids, carry our genes, and give us all of our genetic, molecular, cellular, and skeletal structures. A typical chromatid, one identical part of the chromosome, has two ends and a center. The two ends are Telomeres (T).The center is a Centromere (C).T-C-T However, the chromatids on human's 2nd chromosome each have four ends and two centers.T-C-T-T-C-T This shows fusion.Since the telomeres are fused in the middle, we call this a telomere-telomere, or end to end fusion.http://genome.cshlp.org...How do we know what fused?Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome; if you find these unique base pairs, you then know which chromosome you have, similar to how a fingerprint identifies a human.We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes.What assumptions were made here Pro?How do fused chromosomes indicate that humans were created separately from apes?Fused chromosomes CONFIRM common descent between humans and apes, yet Pro still claims that the evidence fits that the differences were created, not descended.Organisms are not cars Pro.7. Biology's definition.Pro claims:"As you noted in round one, biology is also the study of human behavior (morality)"My response:Nope.The definition in this debate says biology is "the study of living organisms, [which] covers their behavior."Nothing mentions morality, even though Pro conflated human behavior with morality, and nothing mentions HUMAN BEHAVIOR Pro.It says behavior of organisms, and EVERY OTHER ORGANISM doesn't behave based on human morals, actually, behavior in biology doesn't mean interpersonal behavior at all, rather it refers to sleeping/eating habits, reproduction, and ecological role of an organism; this is organismic behavior in biology.Human behavior is a topic for anthropology, not biology, and behavior of organisms is not interpersonal behavior, sorry Pro.I'm out of characters, but next round, I will highlight the biochemistry portion of biology to help clarify the origins of earthly life; spoiler alert, it's a natural process.