Resolved: Biblical Creation Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution in Public High School Biology

Given the weight that entire fields of scholasticsm give to a design aspect of the universe and people, itwould be the pinnacle of scholastistic despotism to not incorporate such theories within at least a high school level, if not collegiate. -Gileandos The purpose of this debate was to establish if a scientific analysis of the Genesis account should be provided to a student for study, discussion and contrast. While my opponent is a very capable debater and well-suited for this site, he has derailed from the resolution. His focus on the merits of evolution undermined his assigned task to discredit Genesis or intelligent design. As I have pointed out in previous rounds my opponent largely failed to attack the Biblical paradigm. He was pervasive in describing the entire process as being akin to “invisible elves” because he chooses not to believe in any other mechanisms than the purely material. His final round attempt to introduce new evidence against Genesis by mentioning the population paradox created by Adam and Eve is nothing short of disingenuous. It is obvious he attempted to draw the reader into his “invisible elves” routine by attacking (what he believes to be) a weak case for the biological generation of the human species. Of course, he did not take the time to study what he objects as fiction, so I grant him a certain sympathy of having limited options, despite this being self-inflicted. Consider the following: The Historical Adam Logos theory – Tracking genetic allele frequency using two genetic clones as the progenitors. [1] The source quotes: “It is disingenuous....to claim no evidence for Adam and Eve for several reasons. First, their conclusions are based on evolutionary assumptions. One cannot legitimately claim something to be proven without testing the assumptions behind that claim. To do otherwise amounts to circular reasoning and question begging, and a rejection of any alternative theory following from this is thus reduced to nothing more than a straw man argument.” Argument refuted. My opponent continues to establish evolution, rather than attacking Genesis, by defending the work of Holly Burke. Dear opponent, if I read your rebuttal correctly, you actually contacted an evolutionist and had them verify that they still believed in evolution and that their work does not support Genesis? Is this supposed to be empirical scientificmethodology? What does this appeal to a biased authority give your case? It's certainly not credibility. To quote your argument: Her study indicated a change in “size, sexual maturation and life span, indicating a gradual, widespread network of selective adaptation.” I am hard pressed to see evidence for macro-biological evolution in this conclusion. We started with a standard fruit-fly and after 600 generations we ended with fat, horny, and old fruit-flies. Brilliant! I think I understand the “invisible elves” a little better now. Here is what I would conclude from this study: In a controlled environment, absent of predators and natural competition, saturated with food, controlled temperature and nominal lighting, the fruit fly thrived. This caused the species to grow larger, mature faster and live longer. This phenomenon has been witnessed in humans also, as we compare the biological effect of poverty and disease stricken populations to those in developed nations with access to healthcare. Strangely, humans with ready access to food, controlled climate housing, and healthcare tend to outlive the humans who starve, die of disease, exposure or competition. The average life expectancy in Kenya is 56 [2]. In the United States the life expectancy is 78 [3]. Should we conclude that Americans are more evolved than Kenyans? [2] I would like to re-quote Holly Burke if I may: “my data and paper do not in any way bear directly on the "question of origins".I'm sure they do not directly bear on origins; how about indirectly? Why use the word “directly”? Why not put the nail in the coffin and simply state:” My study has zero bearing on the question of origins?” It quite obvious that Holly Burke is displeased that her research is being used to fuel to creationist argument, yet it is just as obvious that she cannot discount its implications. Argument and source discredited. My opponent now dove head-first into probability mathematics, attempting to discredit the model setforth by D.L. Abel. His reasoning made my jaw drop. To quote him directly “...in order for UPP to work, my opponentwould have to use the equation on every possible form of self replicating molecule.” Really? Do you think that would make the process simpler or even more complex? That's the most flagrant debatesuicide I've encountered thus far. My opponent has essentially argued that the mathematical model is onedimensional, that many more stages are involved in abiogenisis. This makes the odds even more difficult. We've gone from a mathematical improbability (a single self-replicating protein forming)to a fascinating impossibility (multi-stage formation between a conglomerate of amino acids and proteins allowing them to evolve into a more complex generation of self-replicating proteins). Argument allowed. No dispute required. My opponent closes with the following statement: Macro-evolution is very well substantiated, in both the fossil record and DNA evidence, and is able to be the basis for accurate predictions. I am unaware of any evidence or research that substantiates macro-evolution. I do, however, have a few field experts who wish to weigh in on this assumption: "Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour." Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University [4] "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 [4] "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems." Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences [4] Argument discredited. Creationism or intelligent design has a place in the classroom for the same reason that evolutionary theory has a place. Both make reasonable predictions of biological causality within a scientific framework and both seek to explain truth in origins. Limiting scientific study to popular theory is intellectually myopic, forces a singular, unchallenged viewpoint and as defined by the dictionary, is pure indoctrination. indoctrinate - to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically http://creation.com... [1] http://www.google.com...[2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [4]