Resolved: Biblical Creation Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution in Public High School Biology

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to theuninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Pro stated: We begin with my opponent claiming that biological phenomena does not oppose the Genesis account of creation. This is something I believe I am well able to refute, but such an act would be unnecessary on my part. Rebuttal: It is entirely necessary, certainly if you are “well able to refute” it. This mydirect challenge to you, now for the second round. It’s quite disingenuous toignore a point of argument because you think yourself “above it all”. You challenged me, I might remind you. Follow through. Argument extended. --------------------------- Pro said: First, he claims that fruit flies within a month can create at least 2048 generations. He doesn't have any actual sources for this claim however, and his own sources undermine this point. Most of the information about fruit flies he gets from the Intelligent Design website "arn.org", and it cites a study done by Molly Burke. Rebuttal: Actually, I claimed that fruit flies create morethan 2048 generations within 12 weeks if the process is unhindered and accounts for interbreeding. That’s three months, not one month. Also; the study provided the populationgrowth rate for us. What we need is a calculator. If you doubt the math, refine it. It’s only pre-algebra. One egg matures in 7 days. The species becomes sexually viable within eight hours. I used a buffer of 20 fertile eggs per female, which (I admitted) is probably much greater. Now, the article I provided showed examples of controlled breeding, which selected 30 insects per generation to reproduce the next. No interbreeding was allowed, which resulted in a reduced yieldof one generation every twelve days. Argument extended. --------------------------- Pro stated: This isn't a scientist making the claim, but rather the opinion of the author, one that is itself uncited. Where does the author get that scientists have long suspected this? Certainly it isn't from the study, because the author grossly misrepresents the study, as well as aseparate article about said study. Rebuttal: The author did get it from this study, specifically from the research scientist, Molly Burke. She is quoted as saying:More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characterssuch as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.” Argument extended. --------------------------- Pro said: “....there is no evidence and no test that could show an intelligence was behind any biological process.” Rebuttal: Cryptology - “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulationexperiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not astrictly material process.” (Dr. Stephen C. Meyer,Signature in the Cell.) Biochemistry - “…this extensive new understanding of ribosomes also reveals compelling evidence for the argument that life stems from the work of a Creator. For example, this work highlights the machine-like character of the ribosome and its highly precise and optimized structure.” (Dr. Fazale Rama) [1] Epidemiology - In the end, the conclusion that complexadaptations cannot be very complex without running into feasibility problemsappears to be robust. ... Although studies of this kind tend to be interpretedas supporting the Darwinian paradigm, the present study indicates otherwise,underscoring the importance of combining careful measurements with theappropriate population models.( Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010)) Mathematics - “Mathematical Probability model for the origin of life without the aidof outside influence: cΩu = Universe =1013 reactions/sec X 1017 secs X 1078 atoms =10108cΩg = Galaxy = 1013 X 1017 X 1066= 1096cΩs = Solar System = 1013 X 1017 X1055 = 1085cΩe = Earth = 1013 X 1017 X 1040= 1070” (i.e. Impossible) David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009) Microbiology - “Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemicalevolutionary models for the origin of the information present in largebio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the terminformation as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity butalso specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity,nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information startingfrom purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that ourknowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agencysuggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of theinformation necessary to build a cell in the first place.” (S. C. Meyer, “Dna and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation,” DDPE, pp. 223-285.) Argument extended. --------------------------- Pro said: As far as "a similar ancestor" of which all humans and Chimpanzees aredescended from, about 250,000 generations according to Richard Dawkins, overthe course of 6-7 million years. Rebuttal: Accurate, thank you. An estimated 5.8-7 million years ago, Sahelanthropus tchadensis marked the final common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. Then (without any explanation) in the last 600,000 to 200,000 years, the apes lost all their body hair (during an ice-age) and dramatically reshaped theirskeletal structure. So, after roughly 244,000 generations we are still apes and within 6,000 generations we experience an evolutionary bloom. Yet, a period of 600 generations cannot even create dent in the DNA of an insect. Is evolution supposed to become easier, if the animal is more complex?Not only is Macro-evolution unsubstantiated, relying on unobserved guess-work, it holds no higher scientific merit than the "invisible elves" that power your slanderous arguments. For the next round, substantiate why macro-evolution is a "fact" (as you've called it) and I would enjoy it if you would please attack the Genesis account for scientific inaccuracy. You said it's well within your ability. Endure the debate you've begun. http://www.reasons.org...; [1]