Creationism In Biology Curriculum

Responding to Con"s use of the baseball stadium analogy, the origins of a stadium do have an effect on a game"s statistics. Why? The origins of a stadium begin with planning. As I pointed out my rebuttal of the baseball stadium analogy, the Yankees purposely planned their stadium to be a hitter"s park. They purposely planned for the right field porch to be closer than normal. They measured the wind currents and estimated what would be the best design for their stadium. Of course a statistician does not consider the origins of a stadium when he is recording statistics. He can only record what he sees. However, the origins of a stadium have a profound effect on what he will see because they will affect how the game is played. Take the stadium where the San Francisco Giants play. The high right field wall turns how many home runs into doubles or triples? The origins of the stadium (i.e., the height of that wall) affect the statistics that can be recorded during games played there. In the same way, the origins of the universe are extremely important to the study of biology. For one, theories about the origins of the universe provide pertinent details that are necessary for explaining the fossil record, which is a major part of tracing how life developed. In fact, you cannot trace the fossil record without relating it to time and, as we extend the study of time for the earth backwards, we must draw closer to a beginning for life. Since biology is the study of living organisms, we must include an explanation for the beginning of life in a biology curriculum. Consequently, origins play a very important role in biological studies. Con also uses a story to refute my argument that Creationism should be included in the biology curriculum as a possible alternative. He compares it to someone denying the Holocaust took place in World War 2. Con, with all due respect, that was a low blow! You attempted to marginalize my argument without even questioning it scientifically. I can understand someone questioning the viability of the Creationism theory. However, you did not even attempt to do that. You simply brushed it aside as if it belongs in an insane asylum. Allow me to remind you of the fundamental principle of the scientific method. Alternatives to a theory should be welcomed and studied thoroughly because they will either show the fallacies of that theory or strengthen it by creating scenarios for experiments that will prove the truth of that theory. With all due respect, you seem to have forgotten the fundamental principle of science, which is something that everyone studies science can agree on: to discover the truth about the world we live. The only way we can discover the truth is if we are constantly probing, experimenting, and challenging ourselves regarding the truth of our theories. This is the fundamental crux of my argument and whoever votes on this debate should pay attention to this section. Creationism should be taught in biology as a possible explanation for the diversity of life on our planet if, for no other reason, it provides a fairly reasonable challenge to evolution, which can strengthen or disprove the theory of evolution. Section Separation For a Reference Source In counter to his chromosome fusion explanation, here is an alternative explanation and a little history on it. In 1991, researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence. However, it was much smaller than a normal chromosome and it was degenerate. Because it contained a different signature, researchers speculated that it was a fused telomere. By 2002, they had fully sequenced the bases of DNA surrounding the fusion sequence. The completed research revealed that it was something called a pseudogene because there was no function for. Furthermore, research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site didn"t exist on an ape 2A or 2B chromosomes " the supposed origin location. This is known as a lack of syteny. Alternative research showed that the supposed fusion site was a key part of the DDX11L2 gene, fully explaining its function. This would have been the first documented case of a natural gene fusion. Scientists have yet to find any other and this one was not proven to be true. Consequently, Con"s argument of telomere fusion is only a theory at best (a hypothesis in my opinion since scientists have yet to find evidence for it). To check my reference, please visit the link below. It provides a very thorough explanation from Doctor Jeffrey Tomkins. http://www.icr.org... Section End Con also refutes my argument regarding macroevolution versus microevolution. Please look at this definition from Google: "Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population." The evolutions that Con described are microevolutions that are consistent with Darwin"s observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands. These finches made minor changes due to changes in the environment and the subsequent effects on their food source. However, they did not become drastically different animals. The three examples that Con listed are examples of microevolution. In no case did any of his examples become a drastically different animal than what they were before. In conclusion, the theory of Creationism must be taught and studied via deductive logic. We have the Biblical account of the Creation as well as several other religions" accounts. However, since no one was around to observe the Creation or the process of evolution, we must build our scientific theories deductively in order to arrive at possible explanations. If we begin developing our theories inductively, we will bias our research and greatly hinder our pursuit of the truth. Because Creationism occurred through supernatural processes, the strongest proofs for it are the inexplicable aspects of biology (i.e., DNA, the formation of the eye (Darwin even questioned his own theory and acknowledged that he couldn"t explain the eye through natural processes), and the fossil record) and the holes in the theory of evolution. However, as I said at the beginning of the debate, Creationism and evolutionism don"t have to be used as giant billy clubs against each other. The whole goal of science is to learn the truth and Creationism can serve as a good devil"s advocate to further the study of evolution and vice versa. Consequently, Creationism should be taught in the public school system. I would like to thank Con for a very interesting debate. I learned a lot and I hope I contributed some pieces of knowledge that someone will find interesting. Best wishes to Con and may the best argument win!