Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I will begin by addressing my opponent’s arguments about private and charter schools. 90% of student’s k-12 in the US goes to public schools (Charter schools do receive government funding) and therefore it would seem fair to give public school curriculums 90% of the “weight” of this debate (1). My opponent put forth a plan where students could pick either a creationism or an evolution path in the upper grades. This path however is invalid because evolution is a valid scientific principle, just as much as chemistry or physics, that all students should learn about, regardless of religion, whereas creationism has absolutely no evidence going for it except for the argument “science can’t explain this one little thing so creationism has to be real” which does not hold water. “Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.” I did say in the comments that you could set your own definitions for evolution and creationism, but you never ran this by me. You agreed in term 3 to argue “Con will argue for creationism to be emphasized in school curriculums, above evolution”, and you have just contested that . This is not a valid course of action as you also agreed in term 8 that “Contesting Terms 1-8 is an automatic forfeit”, which you have just done. Refutation of Contention 1 You make several arguments in this contention; however, you did not source any of them. While I do agree that there could have been a flood, unless you can show evidence of Noah’s Ark, then there is no evidence of a biblical flood. In addition, creationism cannot be the overarching field of study until it is proven. Can you prove definitively that a god created some animals outright, no! I can however prove that many animals evolved from other animals. Refutation of Contention 2 “The goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs” Up to the 1800’s this would have meant that students would learn that blacks are inferior and they should be slaves. Throughout history, this would mean teaching that women are inferior and they should not hold power. Up until Galileo, this would mean teaching students that the universe was centered around the earth. Just because a belief is widely held, does not mean it should be taught in schools (Would you like me to talk about Nazi propaganda schooling?) “Belief in science and evolution is NOT a reason for the rejection of the discussion of Creationist theory” I never said that creationism should be rejected, but I do not believe that it should be a large part of the school curriculum unless it can be proven to a greater extent than creationism. “judges should vote for the side that promotes the most education” The Judges should vote for whoever argued their side better, not just for the most education. Just in-case though, I feel that we should extend schooling to 24/7, 365 days a year (Please do not interpret this as being serious), to provide the children with the most education. Refutation of Contention 3 “Allowing the teaching of evolutionary theory directly undermines a religious doctrine” The teaching that the earth is not the center of the universe undermines religious doctrine, what is your point? Religious doctrine has been proven to be blatantly wrong on hundreds of occasions (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), and therefore this is a moot point “Since, for centuries, most students (as the vast majority of students go to public schools for K-12 education) have been taught evolutionary concepts without a regard to creationism, there should be a mechanism to restore the balance of the two viewpoints. The way to promote freedom of religion is by offering creationism (an idea that encapsulates various different religions) and valuing it just as highly, if not more highly, as evolution. “ Why should balance be restored between the two? One has evidence, the other is a myth. I am all for offering creationism in religious studies, or ancient history classes, but since there is no proof, then it should not be valued above evolution. “I refer you to a poll by the Pew Forum: 64% of people support the idea of teaching creationism, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism. Thus, my opponent loses the public support debate because his/her evidence is archaic.” In Nazi Germany, there was public support for the scape-goating of Jews. Was that the right course of action? In the Middle East, there is overwhelming public opinion that Israel should be obliterated. Is that right? Also you have no source for this, also you are calling my evidence archaic, when 99.99% of evidence for creationism comes from a 2000 year old book? More Recent Supreme Court Cases: 1. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005 "[W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science…. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (11). 2. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.-2005 Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."(12). I wish I had more characters, but I still was able to show that Cons argument has much less merit than my own. I would also like to note once again that Con contested term 3-“ Con will argue for creationism to be emphasized in school curriculums, above evolution” by saying “Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.”, which is a clear violation of term 8. Sources: 1. http://www.capenet.org... 2. http://rationalwiki.org... 3. http://www.discoveringislam.org... 4. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... 5. http://www.examiner.com... 6. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... 7. http://atheism.about.com... 8. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... 9. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... 10. http://www.scribd.com... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://en.wikipedia.org...