Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

Thank You Con for your Argument!Rebuttals:Con States: "Let me show some text made by a Atheist that turned into a Creationist. " That is Non-Sequitur.Atheists turning Creationists have no bearing on Removing Superstition/Creation from the Science Class.Con also claimed I did not rebut his arguments concerning Carbon, Moon, Aliens, etc... I have no need to even look at those as they are all attacking Life origins which has nothing at all to do with Evolution.They also have nothing to do with Creation not being Science.Believing and citing Scientific information like Creation and Intelligent Design pretend to do without really understanding the information they cite is not really being Scientific.Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated, it is only concerned with how already living organisms adapt and change over time.Anything that changes over time is evolving, just as languages have evolved over time.There are many Evolutions, Cosmological Evolution, Geological Evolution, etc....Though we have mainly been dealing with Biological Evolution.The science that does deal with Origins Of Life is Abiogenesis, so it is a different argument.Being Scientific deals with what methods are employed to analyse the Evidence and how Conclusions are made.Creation and Intelligent Designer are unscientific for Two Reasons.1: Science Uses Inductive Reasoning for arriving at a Conclusion, Creation uses Deductive Assertion.2: Science must be able to predict outcomes using scientific reasoning, Creation has a Magician/Designer/God that destroys such predictability.The Whole Position of The Debate and Thus My Burden Of Proof is that Removing Creation From The Science Classes Is No Different To Removing Other Superstitions From The Science Classes, in this title I used Pastafarianism, though I could have also used Astrology, Iridology, Palmistry, TeaLeafOlogy and Tarot Card Reading.Basically it is saying that Creationism as a Methodology, is not Scientific.People becoming Creationist is not a measure of the Scientific Nature nor Methods of Creationism/Intelligent Design.Con States: "Comparison In Methodology Between Science And Creationism.Premise: Complexity In An Organ, for example the Human Eye.Science: Scientific Analysis.Premise 1: Human eye is a complex structures.Premise 2: Other species have similar, but successively reduced Complexity in their Eyes.Premise 3: Early examples of eyes show possible succession of eye development from epidermal layer tissues.Conclusion: It is probable that he human eye developed via successive modifications.Creation: Creation Analysis.Primary Premise: All Complex Things Were Designed/Created By God.Secondary Premise: Yes the human eye is a complex machine, high CSI, as remove any of it's components and it will not function as an eye.Conclusion: The human eye is a definitely a product of God's/Intelligent Design.Essentially Creationism/Intelligent Design now rates everything on a Complexity rating.They apply 2 pre-Conceptions, Rules to everything.Video 1: The first video covers the differences in Creation and Science better than I can here:http://www.youtube.com...In case you did not watch the Video, these are the primary differences between Scientific and Creation Methods:Scientific Method(SM): Scientist: "Here are the Evidence/Facts, what Conclusions can we derive from them:Creation Method (CM): Creationist(Holding Scripture): "Here is the Conclusion, what Facts/Evidence can we find to fit this Conclusion."CM alone is enough reason to boot Creationism out of Science classes forever.Video 2 Is a comparison between Creationist and Scientific Theories from the viewpoint of a Christian presenter.http://www.youtube.com...So essentially much of Con's arguments so far have been Non-Sequitur.What Con really needs to demonstrate is:1: That Creation is a genuine scientific Subject and that it deserves to be included in the science classes.Note: Just because people (including a handful of Scientists) believe in it, does not make it a viable concept in science classes, as that is an Appeal To Popularity Fallacy.2: That Creation is not just another Superstitious World View like Pastafarianism, Astrology and TeaLeafology, which really has something to offer Science Students._________________________________________________________________________________Though one thing that is Impossible for Con to demonstrate, is that Creation is an Alternative Scientific Theory To Evolution.For Starters: Creation is not even a Scientific Theory and in Science, only a Scientific Theory can be and alternative to any Scientific Theory.Question for Con:Why would any Science Class teach something that has never been demonstrated as being Scientific in it's methodology, such as Creationism, Astrology, Pastafarianism, or Palmistry?_______________________________________________________________________________Main Points In My Argument against having Creation in Science Classes: Creationists Continually Argue that It Is Wrong To Teach Only One Side Of A Controversy.The Big Question Becomes: What Controversy Is Creation The Other Side Of????Since over 98.5% of Scientists Firmly Believe In Evolution, There Are No Debates Nor Arguments Between Scientists Over Evolution, Public Media Attacks On Evolution Are Not Scientists Arguing Over Evolution, That Is Not How Scientists Attack A Theory, Those Attacks Are Just Propaganda, Science Takes No Notice Of Propaganda Attacks as That approach Is Extremely Unscientific.Science is not a Trial-By-Media Process.Since There Is Absolutely No Controversy In Science Concerning Evolution, There Is No Other Side To Take!Since There Is No Controversy In Science For Creation To Take Part In, There Is No Reason For Creation To Even Be There!Even If There Was A Controversy In Science, A Non-Scientific (not a scientific theory) Superstition Like Creation nor Pastafarianism, nor even Astrology Would Be Considered An Alternative Scientific Theory.Basically Because No Superstitions Can Ever Be Presented As A Scientific Theory.Creation Has Tried To Present Itself As An Alternative Scientific Theory For Over A Century Now and Failed even in Courts of Law: i.e. Dover Trial.Final Contention Against Intelligent Design/Creation:Creationists and Intelligent Design Evangelists are as dishonest as Drug Pushers!every single public advocate of Intelligent Design or Creationism has been caught out deliberately lying To make themselves appear Right in interviews and debates.Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, Duane Gish, Andrew Snelling, John Morris, Henry Morris,... and the list goes on. The Reason they Must Lie is that the central tenets of Creationism are Themselves Fallacies.In order to support Fallacies under rational Criticism, requires Telling Lies.This is why most Christian Apologists have to Lie.Video 3 & 4 are of a 2 part series by a Christian Student who points out the Stupid Dishonesty of Creationist Evangelicals. Science never exhibits such Dishonesty, if a scientist did, he would lose his job.It seems Creationists get rewarded for Dishonesty That Sells Books and Nonsense.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Yet the majority of Christians dislike Creationist/Intelligent Design Advocates.Video 5: The following videos are from a Christian, demonstrating how Creationist/Intelligent Design Evangelists make Christianity look Ugly and Stupid.http://www.youtube.com...Which brings me to another reason why Creationism and any other Superstitions do not belong in Science Classes:They are an Insult to the Intelligence of the students in the class, especially the Christians in those classes.Further Sources:Regarding the banning of creation from UK Science Classes.http://www.iflscience.com...Regarding creationist contrived, Science vs Creation controversy.Truly there is no controversy, it is just a bunch of nutjobs wanting Superstition taught as Science.http://ncse.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://law2.umkc.edu... Now Back to Con for a final Rebuttal of my Arguments!Best of Luck M8!Thanks again for taking up the debate!