We should not teach the controversy

"Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution." Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry ----------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Pro for the excellent and well written opening argument. I argue that Darwinian Macro-evolution requires further scrutiny. I also argue that the Genesis account of creation has a place in the public school. Point 1 - Evolution is a theory: As per every accredited scientific journal and major University, Evolution is a theory: Scientific American, as of 2009, calls evolution a theory. [1] Harvard University began a 2005 research project on the theory of evolution. [2] The University of Sussex published it's 1993 3rd edition text on the theory of evolution, which is still being used today at Cambridge University. [3] Edinburgh University, the University of East London, The center for Philosophy and Natural and Social science, the England Department of Zoology and Oxford University call evolution a theory, as of 2011. [4] Yale University, as of 2012, calls evolution a theory. [5] The Biology Publication, American Naturalist, calls Evolution a theory. [6] 　 In fact, the following Scientific Journals call evolution a theory: Biological Reviews, BioEssays, Biophysical Journal, Cell, Journal of Cell Biology, International Journal of Biological Sciences, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Journal of Molecular Biology, PLoS Biology, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Biochemical Journal, Biophysical Journal, European Journal of Biochemistry, FEBS Journal, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry, Journal of Molecular Biology,Xenobiotica, American Journal of Botany, Annals of Botany, International Journal of Plant Sciences, New Phytologist, Advances in Ecological Research, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Ecology, Ecology Letters, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Bosque, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Genetica, Genetics, Heredity, Journal of Genetics, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Journal of Applied Horticulture, Rangifer (journal), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Developmental Science, Genes, Brain and Behavior, Journal of Neurochemistry, Journal of Neurophysiology, Journal of Neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience,Neuron, Trends in Neurosciences , Journal of Zoology, Zoology, Zootaxa. ----------------------------------------------------------------　 Point 2- Not every scientist accepts the Darwinian Paradigm. The Organization, "Dissent from Darwin", boast a 20 page list of scientist that object to the Darwinian Paradigm. The organizational mission statement is: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list can be downloaded here: http://www.discovery.org... 　 Point 3- Creationism does not conflict with current law: The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) concluded that, "it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be affected consistently with the First Amendment." [7] In the case of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), The Supreme Court ruled that "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." Point 4- Creationism can be provided as a non-invasive elective course: It's mere availability will not force students to pray. Creationism can be provided as an elective study, making it a by-choice credit. Introducing Genesis studies would allow religious households to better support the school district, since the school district is supporting their choice to raise children of faith. Teachers no longer need to fear reprisal or wrongful termination, for mentioning Jesus or Muhammad. If a student declines the course, it would not prevent him/her from graduating. Providing Creationism as a course would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching. 　 Conclusion: Evolution is a theory (point 1), preventing it from exclusive claim to absolute knowledge and truth. It is and must continue to be scrutinized. The "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" answer is not enough. Even in secular circles, Evolution is not universally accepted (point 2). The mere fact that proved, respected names in science demand a closer look should be enough. Ignoring the dispute is akin to an Ostrich with it's head in the sand. The United States Government will support the public school if it decides to make Creation available as a course (point 3). The mere availability of Creationism does not threaten evolutionary teaching in the High school (point 4). Somehow my opponent is convinced that the showdown between evolution and creation must be like the Highlander. There can be only one? I find it dangerous to give absolute ground to either side. "To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic." [8]-------------------------------------------Sources: 　 http://smu.edu... [1] http://english.pravda.ru... [2] http://www.cambridge.org... [3] http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk... [4] http://www.eeb.yale.edu... [5] http://www.life.illinois.edu... [6] http://www.creationtoday.org... [7] http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [8]