Public Schools in the United States Should not Teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution

Thank you to FourTrouble for participating in this debate. I hope no one minds that my argument for this round is the same argument I used in a previous debate with the same resolution that was unfortunately forfeited on. A few observations: This is not a debate about the validity of the theory of Evolution. Although components of such a debate may overlap in this debate, that is not the principle subject at hand. The inclusion of the word “alternative” in the resolution is important. This signifies that, for the purposes of this debate, those who accept evolution as a mechanism of a supernatural being fall under the umbrella of those who accept the theory of Evolution over the alternative of Intelligent Design (ID). This debate discusses what should be done. As such, it is important to understand what is meant by this should. In the case of this resolution, I propose that what should be done is the course of action that better allows a purpose to be fulfilled. Specifically, what should be taught in science classes is what allows the purpose of those science classes to better be fulfilled.Although one could question whether the purpose of science education is primarily to equip the scientists of the future with the tools the they’ll need to pursue those careers or to provide the groundwork for scientifically conscious citizens across the board, both of these goals share function similarly. Something that both of these purposes have in common is that they function by relaying scientific information to students. Therefore, the information presented should be an accurate representation of scientific conclusions and consensuses. In fact, this standard of informing students as to the conclusions and consensuses of a given filed really applies to just about all subjects of education. It should be noted that the previous standard applies specifically to public education, as some private school science classes may have other goals, perhaps goals that are more religious in nature. As it turns out, the scientific consensus on evolution is quite clear, or in the words of the National Academy of Sciences: “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” [1] Newsweek reported in 1987 on a survey that calculated that only .15% of life and earth scientists supported creation-science. [2] Since 1987, the amount of evidence for evolution has continued to increase. Additionally, a great number of scientific organizations from around the world have signed a statement by the Global Network of Science Academies backing the theory of Evolution and its teaching, [3] not to mention the numerous scientific organizations that explicitly reject ID. [4] Given that the purpose of science education is to inform students with regards to the scientific consensus and the scientific consensus clearly rejects ID in favor of the theory of Evolution, the theory of Evolution is what should be taught. Now, ID proponents often argue that schools should teach both “theories” (in quotation marks because I question whether ID is actually a scientific theory, but I digress...), and that doing so would allow students to view both options and choose the option that seems better. “Teach the controversy!” they proclaim. As I have shown, however, there really is no controversy in the world of science. Thus, teaching both options, with one as the alternative to the other, would be misleading. Clearly, the resolution is affirmed. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources: [1]- http://www.nap.edu......[2]- http://www.religioustolerance.org......[3]- http://www.interacademies.net......[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org......