Creationism should not be taught in schools

Pro wrote: "I understand your argument to be for a debate in science classrooms about Darwin's natural selection and a level of criticism being put against it. " Let me repeat what I wrote: "I want to make it clear from the outset. I am not arguing that 'Intelligent Design' or 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' should/ought be taught, but rather disagreeing with pro's statement that "any reference to 'Intelligent Design' or 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' should be removed from education guidelines and that natural selection should be unopposed as scientific fact. " I am in favor of the right of a school to decide that it will teach a balanced approach to science in general, and specifically Darwin's theory of evolution. This can best be summed up in the words, "Teach the controversy". " Pro makes a very interesting point that biology is less speculative than physics. This is somewhat of a straw man as my examples were not primarily fro, physics. For example: . http://blog.chron.com...: Miasmatic theory of disease Stress theory of ulcers Immovable continents The four humors" theory of human physiology (Static universe) A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. All scientific thinking up to a point (long before Darwin/Lamarck) held that all species of life were immutable and had all existed in their current form since they came into being. Lamarckian Theory of Evolution The theory that proteins were the heritable molecules and not DNA (which was thought to be structural). It was taught from antiquity until the 1600s that the arteries circulated air as part of respiration. The true role of the heart in circulation was discovered by William Harvey on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals DDT is safe. Tobacco is good for your health. Original abiogenists theories- certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on. The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, that genetic information flows from DNA to RNA to protein with no reversals. Then, of course, retroviruses were discovered, among other exceptions. Using leeches and bleeding as a form of cure. Phrenology Panspermia Phlogiston Eugenics Pro accuses me of saying "that Evolution is 'only a theory' " I was afraid of being misunderstood in this way; I therefore worded my statement very clearly. My point was not to say "it's only a theory", I was coming in opposition to pros calling evolution "scientific fact". I will past here my exact words so you don't need to go back: "Pro goes on to write: "I believe this is fundamentally wrong as it teaches children to doubt scientific fact. " In my opinion that's a good thing, we should doubt "Scientific fact". Doubt, not deny, disregard, degrade or, disrespect. A healthy dose of doubt is what science needs. Science is becoming over rated and over confident. Science needs to slow down, and admit that, they don't know certain things for sure. Science can speculate, observe, and theorize, but the term "scientific fact" gets thrown around way too much, and leads to embarrassing mistakes. Evolution is called a theory for a reason, I don't mean to say it's baseless, but there are many problems, & tons of different opinions. " I hope it is now clear what I said. I thank pro for elaborating on his statement that doubting science is "unhealthy for society". But I fail to see what the big deal is. 1st of all, they don"t doubt science as a whole, they are hearing what they consider to be a scientific alternative to Darwin"s theory of evolution, which fits their religious beliefs. Science at large is not in question. 2ndly, practically speaking, what"s the difference? Why is it unhealthy for society? My opponent wrote: "I compare it to teaching flat earth as opposition to round earth 'theory'. " Well, that"s a very interesting point, why is there no controversy any more over round earth even though it contradicts church doctrine, but there is regarding evolution? The reason is round earth is vastly superior to the theory of evolution. Four grades of scientific speculation: A. description of repeatable, observable phenomena - science has maximum credibility, though fallible B. interpolation C. extrapolation - beyond tested boundaries D. deep theory - postulating unobservable entities on the sole ground that they would explain observations. Some facts that need to be considered: The majority of the American public: More Americans believe in intelligent design than evolution. [1] It is presumable that those people want do not want I. T. to be banned from science class. The tax payers of America have a right to choose how their tax money is used and what their children learn. Separation of Church & state: Separation of Church & state works both ways, evolution is considered by many to be against their religion. They should have the right to hear alternatives as well. There are a significant # of scientists that don't accept evolution: A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center 13% of scientists say evolution is not due to natural processes, such as natural selection. 20 page list of scientists that reject evolution. [3] Scientific Problems with the evidence for evolution: A. originally adopted against both the best current age of the earth and the conception of inheritance as blending, and missing its own crucial fossil evidence - this shows the bias of the scientific community in favor of the theory [better any naturalistic explanation than scientific bankruptcy! ] B. the theory asserts that life is the result of unguided, accidental, "random," processes without providing an estimate of the probability of success - the theory is not precise enough to be evaluated for credibility C. misuse of data - black/white moths - no new forms implies no support for evolution; persistence of white form implies (extremely weak) evidence against evolution. D. misuse of data - "evolution" of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, insects resistant to insecticides- can be explained without evolution if a subpopulation were already resistant E. misuse of data - the gap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution F. homology [def. limbs or organs with similar structure serving different purposes] - the claim: evolution (common descent) and nothing else can explain homology - both parts of the claim are false: (1) evolution cannot explain homology since homologous structures have dissimilar genetic coding (due to pleiotropy) and embryological development; (2) usefulness and "parallel evolution" are alternative explanations G. fossil record lacks intermediary forms - theory of "punctuated equilibrium" explains why we will not find evidence of its truth [! ] - does nothing for big gaps (Fox-like mammal to whale; insects; flowering plants; etc. ) H. most extinctions due to catastrophes - no evidence of any extinctions due to competition I. no credible (even hypothetical) account of the origin of the first self-replicator, DNA/proteins, the cell, human intelligence [4] [1] . http://www.gallup.com... . http://www.gallup.com... [2] . http://www.people-press.org... [3] . http://www.discovery.org... [4] . http://www.dovidgottlieb.com... See there for individual primary sources.