We should not teach the controversy

“"We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between physically indistinguishable sibling species of fruit flies. " Elizabeth J. Bruce and Francisco J. Ayala “Humans and Apes are Genetically Very Similar,” Nature 276:264, Nov. 16, 1978 “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ” “Put Your Money on Evolution” The New York Times (April 9, 1989) section VII p.35 “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips. .. continue the list as long as desired. ” Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth. p.8 Ok, so we are back on track debating whether or not Creationism should be taught on school grounds in the same manner as evolution. Let’s review some of our key points: KEY POINTS FROM PRO 1. Evolution is an undeniable fact 2. Schools ought to teach facts 3. Creationism is unverifiable and therefore not science. KEY POINTS FROM CON 1. Evolution is only a theory 2. Not every scientists believes in evolution 3. Creationism does not conflict with the current laws 4. Creationism can be taught freely as an elective. Note to con: Please forgive me if I misrepresented any of your positions. If the above is incorrect, please correct it. PRO’S POINTS In round 1, I gave some overwhelming evidence for evolution, and if time permits, will expand on that and bring up more evidence as well. My partner hasn’t disputed any of my points. If I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact, then there is no reason to teach the controversy in the same way we shouldn’t teach the holocaust never happened to be “fair” to the students with parents that differ. CON’S POINTS CONTENTION 1: EVOLUTION IS (ONLY) A THEORY A. DEFINITION OF A THEORY Although in everyday language, a theory is used to refer to a hypothesis or an educated guess, we are talking about science. Therefore, we would like to keep with the scientific definitions. Remember, the rules were no semantics. I CLEARLY defined a theory in the first round of arguments. Consequently, you are playing semantics. I will gladly accept your definition of a fact as a verifiable truth or reality. Likewise, the NCSE points out that “in science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true. ”[1] So, how does one determine whether something is or is not a fact? In science, we do repeated experience, repeated observations, and repeated predictions that all point to the conclusions. Based upon the evidence, we draw our conclusions. Here are a few illustrations demonstrating this: Based upon this, what facts do we have to prove evolution is more than a theory? I’ll explain later on in the round. B. A FACT AND A THEORY My partner has yet to refute anything from the evidence for evolution. Consequently, it is safe to say that he is conceding that evolution IS a fact; although it is also a theory. It is possible for a statement to be a theory and a fact. We do it all the time in the Atomic Theory and the Germ Theory of Disease. This is no reason to reject evolution. CONTENTION 2: REJECTION OF EVOLUTION BY SCIENTISTS A. PROJECT STEVE My partner has utterly failed to understand the point. From NCSE website, “Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. ”[2] The point I’m trying to make here is that just because someone who is a scientist affirms or denies evolution, does not falsify evolution nor does it mean that we should totally reject evolutionism in the science class. Remember, evolution is the backbone of biology—without the ToE, we cannot fully comprehend biology. Ok, so let’s talk about real statistics here without something like what my partner’s project and what my project has done. According to estimates done by the National Academy of Science, only .015% of relevant scientists reject evolution. [3] CONTENTION 3: CREATIONISM DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT LAW A. The fallacy I pointed out that he has committed the appeal to authority and my partner flat out agreed that it was a fallacy! I gotta love this quote, it may go on my wall of fail: Any attempt to indoctrinate my children to a single point of view will be met with legal action. I am not the "picket sign" Christian that condemns you to hell. I trust the sufficiency of the Gospel to do it's work. I simply desire that my children get access to my world view in the classroom. Sending me to a private, Christian academy is not the answer. I barely make enough money to pay the bills. Legal action, or "an appeal to authority" is an absolute requirement. No court case concerning this subject was ever void of secular defense. Your side invokes legal action with matched fervor. It is hypocrisy to deny me my day in court. Anyways, this is wrong in so many ways. Although I agree that any attempt at indoctrinating our children should be met with legal action, why then shouldn’t we teach the controversy for all subjects; namely, that the holocaust never happened and that it was a Jewish conspiracy; the earth is flat and NASA wants to hide it from us; and any other nut crazy idea out there. Likewise, the way you defined indoctrination as “teaching systematically to accept doctrines, esp. uncritically” is exactly what creationism is! Creationism is UNVERIFIABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE unlike evolution which is both! CONCLUSIONS MY partner dropped all of my arguments and has not responded to my proofs for evolution. Therefore, one may insist on this syllogism: 1. Schools ought to teach facts. 2. Evolution is a fact 3. Therefore, schools ought to teach creationism. 4. Creationism is unverifiable, not science, and not a fact. 5. Therefore, we should not teach Creationism. Case closed. Vote pro. [1] "Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | NCSE. " Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | NCSE. National Academy of Science. Web. 05 May 2012. <. http://ncse.com...;. [2] "Project Steve | NCSE. " Project Steve | NCSE. National Academy of Science. Web. 05 May 2012. <. http://ncse.com...;. [3] By relevant scientists, we are referring to biologist. For more, see . http://www.nap.edu...