Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools

I specifically stated in the first post: "If ID or Creationism can provide evidence to prove its points why not allow it?" I specified those 2 views because it is well accepted that Creationism and Intelligent Design are the 2 major counter points to evolution as can be witnessed in the available literature which presents scientific reasons for their points of view. If the debater would like a list of websites and literature regarding a Creationist and Intelligent Design perspective to validate that statement, I can provide him with such. How much literature does Buddhism and Scientology provide to scientifically validate its points of view? How popular or distributed are these points of view? My guess is not very much. However, the issue raised with these views will be covered below. On the other hand, if the debater is going to bring up every minuscule and absurd view that could possibly exist, why not throw all views out and let the student choose for themselves? Why should only one point of view, that of evolution be taught in the schools? In other words, what scientific evidence gives evolution the edge over all other views? And I am not referring to opinion nor consensus of an isolated group here but evidence. That is, where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the claim of Darwin that animal life evolved through innumerable, slight, successive modifications over long periods of time? After all, if this model is to be taught over all others, and claims that empirical materialism is the only scientific paradigm acceptable, then please advance the empirical material evidence to corroborate the claim. Otherwise, I can see no reason why the major oppositional claim, Creationism or Intelligent Design, should not be permitted to advance their scientific points of view in the educational systems and allow students to decide based on the evidence they would provide, beginning with the fossil record as well. As far as minor claims such as the directed panspermia claims which evolutionists have also advanced and referred to with your Scientology question, there are a number of problems with this model that would declassify it as scientific. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for it. We have not even determined that there are aliens, let alone that they implanted life here. So how can something that doesn't even have a shred of evidence be considered scientific. Science is after all based on evidence is it not? Or least evidence pointing towards a conclusion. With no evidence for alien life, how can one claim that they implanted life here? You need evidence (not belief in) of aliens to start with. Secondly, even if there were aliens (which has never yet been proven), how did they arise themselves? To claim that aliens somehow implanted life on this planet simply transfers the problem of origins outside of this planet to some other unknown position in the universe. The problem of origin still remains unanswered. It was simply transferred somewhere else. Not an evidence based answer to the origins issue simply a transfer to another location. So, no I would say that directed panspermia or any of its off shoots should not be taught in schools other than as a minor suggested possibility. It should also be acknowledged that it has no evidence in the form of aliens to support its basic hypothesis. Other issues also exist for this theory such as the massive issues with space travel and distance for directed panspermia as well as the survival of bacteria on meteorites in the panspermia (undirected version) claims. In short, there is no point in discussing theories with no evidence to support their claims. On the Buddhist view. If they have scientific explanations for their point of view that are worthy of consideration, I see no issue with that being presented as well. Again as a minor advance since it really doesn't address the question of origins with any degree of completeness. The issue was origins, Creationism and/or ID versus evolution not every minor ancillary possible claim. Creationism has more than ample evidence to support its claims, historical validity and includes perspectives on the geological issues and dating issues and others origin related issues as well. Again, for completeness if the minor claims needed to be covered, they could be done in a class or two or a chapter in a book. No need to beat dead horses or minuscule claims. After all, historically the case for a Creator has been around practically since man began to write whereas Scientology and space men as well as evolution are relative new comers. What has the devil as the Creator of God got to do with presenting science in the educational curriculum? Again, this is a red herring that serves as a distraction from the issue originally presented and needs no answer. This is not an issue that needs addressed in a science class or course. One can debate such an issue in a philosophy class perhaps if desired. As far as the Muslim view goes, again a non-issue. As mentioned in my second post, there would be no sectarian evidence presented. There would simply be a presentation of the evidence of a Creator or the claims of Creationism vs. the it done it all by itself claims of the evolution model. That is, created by a supernatural being or created itself with regards to the question of origin. No specific denomination nor religious perspective needs to be advanced to address the claim of Creator vs. No Creator points of view. The Christian vs. Muslim view is another issue entirely and again could be considered a red herring in the issue at hand. BTW, your view on the Muslim approach to Jesus is flawed and inaccurate but that would be another issue as I stated entirely. May I remind the debater to stay on point and stop taking this issue in different directions and off point. The issue at hand as stated in my original debate posture is why does evolution have to be the only point of view included in the science curriculum when Creationism and Intelligent Design can supply current and past science based evidence to support their points of view on origins that a Creator or Intelligent Designer would be a necessary consideration of the origins issue? An additional issue would be that evolution, which claims to be the only view worthy of consideration in the classroom, also needs to advance empirical material evidence (Since they claim that only naturalism or empirical materialism can qualify as science) to support its claims such as the transitional fossils which support its claim that all animal life was generated by innumerable, slight, successive modifications over time to produce the varied kinds of species.