Faith Schools Should be Banned

Firstly, I would like to contradict your statement claiming that the evolutionary theory is somehow on a different level then other commonly accepted theories within the scientific community. There is an absolutely enormous amount of evidence for evolution, and not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, although I will admit, it is a somewhat attractive idea. You also say the evolutionary theory is only a theory, but that simply means that the is tremendous evidence for it, but it is not technically a fact because it can not be seen occurring, just like the others I have mentioned. The fossil record is proof that evolution is true, although some of the details are still being disputed. You quickly attempt to turn my own words against me by trying to use an equivalent example of science bending facts to fit their own agenda. The fact of the matter is, some experiments have variable that are not taken into account, and they are performed incorrectly, or get results that may not usually occur. I have heard of the peppered moth experiment, but have not actually seen it in any official textbooks. The fact of the matter is, even if this one incident did turn out to be nothing more then a hoax, there are countless other experiments of which provide the same results because Micro-evolution has certainly been proven because the changes and actually be seen, while Macro- evolution cannot be directly seen. Also taking down Darwin doesn't necessarily discredit the evolutionary theory. If Darwin said his theory was false (like many people say he did, but that was just a rumor made about him many years after he was dead), it would still not discredit it because he did not invent it, he simply theorized and pointed out the possibility of it's reality. The issue at this time for Darwin though, is that there was very little evidence for Darwin to work with at the time, compared with what there is now. Besides, even if the peppered moth experiment is used in textbooks, it isn't lying because micro evolution like that does occur in reality. Now onto your view of alternate theories that could possibly be taught along with evolution. I agree, the intelligent idea may be presented as something that many people believe or even an idea, but there is no reason to present it as fact because there is no evidence to support that claim. My point in all of this is that education should be based on the facts that we know, and also the theories of which we can make reasonable conclusions to arrive at facts. I hate to seem callous or ignorant, but in terms of number in relation to popularity, this means little to nothing. Majority consensus does not automatically equal truth, although I see your point that the majority of the population sees it a possibility or even the most probable. Even if 100% of people in Iraq are Muslims, it does not give validity to their held standpoint. With this in mind, no extra elbow room, I believe, should be given to the idea, simply because I large amount of people view it as favorable of possible. The people writing the textbooks for these schools, are not scientists themselves, but the information they receive is given to them by scientists, and is peer reviewed by other professionals, unlike much of the material in faith based schools of which are based on ancient holy texts. For the question of whether they are influenced by bias, it is highly unlikely. It is common knowledge that about 93% of scientists are agnostic or atheists, while the remain 7% are some sort of theist. It would have to be a gigantic conspiracy for these scientists to get away with such large bias, because even much of the 7% agree with theories such as "evolution" and the "big bang". Asking if a parent should be able to bring up a child how they want, again, is tricky business. It may be compared to whether a country can govern it's people how it pleases, and I think we all know that can get out of control. But to directly address the question: "who has is the ultimate guide of a child"s education; the parent or the state?", I don't believe it is one or the other, and let me explain why. I expressed my approval earlier for churches because they do not actually replace the education. Now, both the parent and the state play a role in this, the state, has scientists inform these writers of modern scientific discovery, so that it can be recorded and made available for students. The parent may choose to take their child to church if they so please, as long as that child isn't missing out or being mislead. So shorten the answers, the "state" educates the student on scientific discoveries, the parents may do whatever out of the school, as long as the child is receiving the vital information. It is vital because to grow as a society, we need to be able to be on the same page, which is exactly why the scientific community has progressed so much in recent years. Last question: "how will you avoid bias among a race that is already biased by nature?" bias is inevitable, that is already known, but whether it is evident or not, the facts remain the same, and personal opinion cannot personally influence that. The fact is that bias does exist more strongly within the religious world because they look for anything to support their beliefs, whereas science usually looks for truth, wherever it may lead. 1. Do you believe a lack of understanding of the scientific world is detrimental to society? 2. Can Intelligent Design really be "taught" in class, even when there is not evidence? 3. Should Children be able to choose whether to be introduced to this type of learning? I lean towards no. Anyways, it has been a pleasure debating with you, as this is my first debate to participate in. I hope you respect my opinion, as I do your's and hope to in some way influence your standpoint.