If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned.

My requirement for this debate is to show that the proposed and possible unconstitutionality of evolution has no legal bearing on the already established unconstitutionality of creationism. I must show that the legal remedy of the government is to ban unconstitutional action rather than allow other unconstitutional action to even things up a bit. This argument logical follows from given legal precedents and rational understanding of law, equality and fairness. -- Despite my opponents claims about the resolution, it is clearly stated. If evolution were such that it would violate the first amendment this would have no bearing on the constitutionality of creationism. My opponent is attempting to establish that the above situation would permit a continued teaching of evolution and thus a double standard, and thus demand that we teach creationism. There are two insurmountable problems with this: First, if the condition of the resolution is established, and the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. The legal remedy for this would be to stop teaching it. There would be no double standard as both evolution and creationism would be banned as religious violations of the first amendment. The second problems is that even evolution were continued and not deemed unconstitutional as might still be the case under McGowan v. Maryland which holds that government actions do not violate the first amendment if they have legitimate secular purposes as evolution still would explain and make predictions about the life on this planet we wouldn't have a violation of the Lemon test as the government action would not have "the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;" rather the secular purpose would be the primary effect and promotion of religion being the secondary. Whether or not evolution slips by the test of legality, given the conditions, is irrelevant. Creationism is *still* unconstitutional to be taught within science classrooms of government schools. Your third observation is up for debate, but even if it were or were not true the government actions are either to stop teaching evolution or to find legal reasons for continuing the teaching. It does not remedy the situational by bringing unconstitutional teachings back to the classroom. Two wrongs do not make a right. ------------ >>"We come to a conclusion that if something is part of a religion, then it should not be banned." No. In fact, in allowing the blue laws which initially established in order to increase church attendance and other nonsecular purposes we find that all we need is a secular purpose for a nonsecular motivated action. If there were secular applications for creationism to be taught in school (they tried to argue this and failed) then it can be taught. Likewise, if there are not secular purposes then it cannot be a legal action for the government to take. Depending on the interpretation of the condition, evolution may or may not still have secular purposes. This would be a matter for the courts to decide. However, what isn't up for review by anything in the conditional is whether or not creationism is or isn't still unconstitutional; it is. It isn't the point of the first amendment to be productive. The point of the first amendment is to protect the people from government restrictions on speech, press, religion, assembly, and redress. Knowledge about existence is important to know and certainly understanding the world has a number of secular applications. However, teaching creationism has failed to accurately meet this purpose and rather had the primary purpose of furthering particular religions. Evolution, depending on the interpretation of the conditional, may or may not accurately meet this criteria. If it fails to meet the criteria it is unconstitutional. It would thus be barred as acceptable government action. -- No part of this allows us to revisit the matter of creationism. If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned. -------------------- >>"I never once said that the 1st Amendment grants equality." You said, "Since both teachings derive from some type of 'religion', then to fulfill the governments obligation of equality, both must be taught." And that statement is not accurate. The governments actions are not concerned with being equal (though equality in a number of places are required for constitutionality) but rather in not overstepping the lines drawn by the first amendment to promote religions. If teaching creationism, does that it's illegal. If teaching evolution does that, it's illegal. The conditional of the topic has absolutely no bearing on creationism. Teaching creationism still promotes religion and is still illegal (as government action). >>"According to Rawls, an institution, like the government, must be based on justice." Our bill of rights are fair and just. If both evolution and creationism are illegal they are both banned. You are assuming that evolution would continue to be taught, and while possible it would depend on whether or not it would be just to do so. However, none of this has any bearing on the part of the topic in contention. Should creationism still be banned? Yes, of course. >>1. Types of theories of existence. Evolution and Creationism Creationism doesn't qualify as a theory of existence but rather a set of religious claims about existence. Depending on how one interprets the conditional evolution may or may not qualify either. >>2. Teaching one of these or both has some secular purpose. I.e. higher knowledge Only if correct and not a set of religious claims. Certainly you could argue that my marketing of a belief in Isis which allows people to live forever to school children has secular purpose because the students living forever would be beneficial for some students. However, if my claims aren't true and it's simply a scam then I should not be allowed to do so. Likewise, teaching creationism was found to have no secular purpose and was thus struck down by the Supreme Court. Nothing about the conditional provides creationism with a secular purpose. With regard to creationism we are dealing with the same unconstitutional beast we had without the conditional. >>3. Hypothetically in this resolution, religious is secular because in this case religion includes both belief and non-belief. No. The conditional does not make the religious secular, it makes the secular religious. It contends that evolution is part of the religion of atheism. This means that evolution would have a good deal of non-secular baggage. This would not mean that religions suddenly become secular and have secular purposes. It would simply shed doubt on the constitutionality of evolution. >>1. Justice is equality and fairness Accepted. >>2. If one is allowed to be taught, then the other must be If one interprets the conditional to assume evolution is on the same foundations as creationism, then the two would aptly be in the same boat. >>3. If not, then a double standard has been created Accepted. -- However, if we are to make the assumption, which I find perfectly acceptable, in number two then both evolution and creationism are to be banned. No double standard is created as neither would be taught. >>Evolution and Creationism are both religious. Only the two (in this case) can answer the question of existence. This is knowledge. Knowledge is a secular purpose... This is a false choice. If evolution and creationism are both religious (as assumed by topic and established by legal precedent) it does not follow that the two are required for any purpose at all. You say that "Only the two can answer the question of existence" -- this is not accurate, perhaps neither can. If neither can, just as both Islamic as well as Christian creationism are banned from schools, then atheistic Creationism would be equally banned and students would learn about no