Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative theory to Evolution.

I have created a thread where I will post my sources. (e) indicates there is evidence for this claim in the thread. I invite Pro to post evidence there too. . http://www.debate.org... Abbreviations: ID=Intelligent Design CE=Cambrian Explosion I will take the resolution to be: "Resolved: ID should be taught at least alongside Evolution in Public Schools. " Question: How do we teach ID? Foreword: Evolution does not describe how life arose. It is not meant to. Other theories do, this does not. If you see the definition Pro provides, it NEVER mentions the origin of life as being a necessary part of evolution. Evolution describes how life became more complex. It's like asking a physicist to paint the Mona Lisa - not his job. Discard all of Pro's arguments dealing with the origin of life. -CON CASE- A lot of arguments that can be made for my case are in my rebuttals against Pro's Contention Three. Each rebuttal is more proof for Evolution. Contention One: Public Schools Ought to Only Teach Science in Science Classes My only contention is that what should be taught in public schools (at least in relation to biology, in this case) should be science. We cannot demand schools to teach a curriculum that is not a science - and thus any idea which is not scientific cannot make its way into the classroom. Just like we cannot tell English teachers to teach improper comma usage, and we cannot demand History teachers to tell their students that time-traveling aliens kidnapped Elvis, all we can make Science teachers in public schools teach is what is science. A) Intelligent Design is not Science (e) -For an idea to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable. There is no way to 'disprove' the designer, as he/she/it is not directly observable. In addition, looking at the purported 'designed' world, there can be no observation that can be agreed to disprove the designer (any observation that one says disproves the designer, such as incomplete organs, can be attributed to the designer). B) Evolution is Falsifiable (e) The following could disprove evolution -A static, unchanging fossil record -True chimeras - organisms with combined body parts, like minotaurs or mermaids. Only real. -Something that stops mutations from occurring. -Observations of an organism being created. -PRO CASE- "Contention 1: Education is Public" (e) -Yes, public schools are indeed public. However, the statistics presented by Pro are from 2005, 4 years ago. The opinion has shifted. 2007 polling by Gallup shows that 49% of the polled believe in evolution, while only 48% disagree with it. Adults with a postgrad degree had an acceptance rate of 74%. -While education is public funded, public opinion does not determine what is correct. To say "the public believes it, ergo it is true" is no argument at all. Public consensus does not determine what is true. "Contention 2: Scientists Support Intelligent Design" (e) -This information taken from the census bureau shows that there were 258,491 life scientists, those who study biology, hired by the public in the US. So, even if there were 350 scientists in support of ID, and ALL of them were in life science, that puts about .135% of life scientists in favor of ID. This 'majority' which Pro speaks of does not exist. In fact, the facts go almost as far in the other direction as possible. 99.865% of life scientists (if not more - the industry will have grown in the past three years) do not support ID. Scientific consensus is not for it, not by a long shot. In those two contentions, not only does Pro make false assertions, but we see that all his arguments go Con. "Contention 3: The Science Does Not Support Evolution" 3a. -One word: superbugs. The emergence of drug-resistant bacteria is clear evidence for evolution. Furthermore, insects and other animals become resistant to pesticides that we use. This is evolution empirically observed. I have included more evidence in the thread. Fossil records and homologous structures are evidence for evolution. -ID has never been observed. Science cannot function without empirical evidence, and we have never gathered such evidence, in my knowledge, of ID. (Pro's argument turned against him). 3b. (e) -Aah, the Cambrian Explosion argument. What my opponent is talking about here is the emergence of a large number of animals in the fossil record during the Cambrian period. Let it be noted that by using the CE argument, my opponent concedes the reliability of the fossil record (which is very strong evidence for evolution). -What we see in the CE is not an explosion in the diversity of life, but more of an explosion in hard-bodied life. Soft bodies and body parts do not fossilize well. Bones and exoskeletons do - so what we see here is a shift in great part to hard body parts. -There is evidence for a mass extinction before the Cambrian. Such an event would clear many roles in the environment. Any organisms that remained would then undergo adaptive radiation, or multiple different mutation paths, and diverge into different species to fill these new niches. -Furthermore, there is increasing evidence for bacteria life from about 1250 million years ago. The existence of such life makes it easier for fast speciation to occur. -Such an event is evidence against ID. Life existed before the CE. We have two possibilities - the designer created such life, thus the CE would represent it creating life again. The other possibility is that the CE was the first design, but then prior life would not be designed, and science trumps ID. The CE is explained by evolution, but not by ID. 3c. The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Why is this not enough? How long does life take to form? The fossil record shows that life has become more and more complex. We have advanced from Stromatolites (which are built by microbe communities) to humans in not too much more than 1.25 billion years. Why isn't evolution adequate to explain this diversity if we can see it unfolding? 3d. I would encourage everybody to read the entire webpage at secondlaw. com. My opponent leaves out a major part of this, dealing with the word 'tends' and how life 'violates' entropy. To quote "Its tendency is never eliminated but, fortunately for us, there are a huge number of compounds in which it is blocked for our lifetimes and even far longer. " If we follow my opponent's argument, I should not be able to stack building blocks together, or cook, as things get more complex as I do so. What allows things to get more complex is an outside source of energy which gets less complex and diffuses. In our case, the sun provides the energy required to violate entropy on our planet. Entropy (which is the 2nd law) is upheld on the whole in our solar system. 3e. -Can I get any evidence, any at all for this? -What about bacteria which mutate to become resistant to antibiotics? 3f. -The probability of complex life being the FIRST thing on the planet is extremely low. Simple life emerging is different. -Again, evolution does not need to explain the origin of life, just its diversity based on Pro's definition. -How do you arrive at this probability? How low is it? None of these arguments go against evolution, many have . Pro never cites specific evidence for ID. I challenge Pro to make a case for ID. In conclusion: -Evolution doesn't need to describe life's origin, only its complexity. There is plentiful evidence for it. -ID is not science, and should not be taught. Pro defeats himself by requiring empirical evidence for science, which we don't have for ID. He never explains how his arguments which 'disprove' evolution are for ID. -Public/Scientific opinion is against ID. -All Pro arguments against evolution hold no weight. Many arguments are factually incorrect or have no evidence behind them.