Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

Ok, so Pro and I have had some extra curricular disputes about what creationism is, so let me outline what Pro is claiming should be an equal focus to evolution in biology curricula.In this debate, creationism is the belief that living organisms ORIGINATE (present tense indicative) rather than by natural processes like evolution.This makes no mention how life ORIGINATED, in the past tense, rather it speaks to CURRENTLY, living organisms ORIGINATE, in the present tense, rather than by natural processes.This is the creationism that Pro agreed to defend, and is the creationism that Pro is attempting to have taught to public school children; this is an idea that exists in opposition to natural processes such as evolution.I do agree with Pro, in that evolution makes no real attempt to explain how life ORIGINATED (notice the past tense form of originate is NOT part of creationism in this debate), but we teach our students about biochemistry, and the natural origins of earthly life.Pro would agree that natural processes that explain how living organisms ORIGINATED is in direct opposition to creationism, right Pro?So... *Earthly life originated by Abiogenesis.*Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...That's what abiogenesis is...the idea that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds.Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methioninehttp://www.pnas.org..."When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."http://www.pnas.org...So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.But what about genetic replication?Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.According to the NIH:"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids."catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.Any primitive organism would be replicating with RNA and metabolizing with amino acids, but what might they be consuming?"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Abiogenesis explains earthly life's natural origins, and unlike creationism, provides MECHANISMS that explain HOW this was done.I've repeatedly asked Pro to provide the mechanism for:1. How a creator created earthly life.2. How the differences between species and genus were designed rather than formed by natural processes.Here's what Pro has given us:1. "a divine agent would do things supernaturally so no mechanistic explanation for creation is really necessary"My response:Well, no mechanistic explanation isn't something to be taught in a science class, because what is it that you would teach about this creation?Hey kids, a divine agent created things, that's it, because I can't explain/know how, so now you're all ready for the test on creation.2. " A creator merely created thousands of different species."My response:Pro, how can this even make equal time in a biology curriculum alongside the mechanisms of abiogenesis and evolution?Seriously, Pro how are you to teach anything about this when you've admitted not knowing HOW it was accomplished.3. "Creationism teaches that this differences were there because they were designed that way"My response:What is it that Creationism is teaching OTHER than your assertions Pro?Speciation, gene fusion, mutations, and descent with modification are ALL natural processes that are in DIRECT contrast to this assertion, and unlike creationism, these natural processes have a mechanism that you can teach to students.How does "they were designed that way" amount to equal time with evolution and its constituent natural processes WITHOUT a describable mechanism?4. "[Creationism] provides us with an explanation for why life exists"My response:Really? What's the explanation? God did it, and that's it?Pro, please give us something to teach other than assertions/speculations that would acutally take up space in a curriculum!5. "Life (including natural processes) originated by supernatural means."My response:Ok, so Pro would have biology teach that mysterious supernatural means created natural means, and Pro would provide no idea or explanation as to HOW, so Pro would have the curriculum simply assert that this is the case, and expect students to repeat this assertion...there's no learning going on here Pro.6. "The arrangement of living things into groups supports a designer instead of a common ancestor."My response:Nope, and Pro ignored descent with modification being the CORNERSTONE of the arrangement of living things.Descent with modification ELIMINATES the need for an arranger; descent with modification arranges organisms naturally.7. "I would agree that humans can not completely comprehend how a creator created the universe."My response:Well the creation of the universe is irrelevant to biology, because biology presupposes a universe, and only attempts to explain biodiversity.It would seem that Pro admits AGAIN that he has no mechanism behind his magic creator, only his assertions.8. "God is all powerful and the most creative being in the universe, it is reasonable to say that he created life."My response:Still no mechanism or explanation of HOW?Then it is UNREASONABLE to say that he created life.9. "The creator made life with these natural processes. It is that simple."My response:This enraged me beyond belief, because this is in DIRECT contrast with the position that PRO agreed to defend. I asked Pro HOW did a creator create life rather than by natural processes, and Pro responded "with natural processes."Pro may try to claim that he is using the preposition "with" to say that god created life ALONGSIDE natural processes" however, this is bunk.If you ask someone HOW, which I have done upwards of a million times in this debate, and they respond with "with" that preposition is being used as "by."Q - How does rain form?A - With evaporation and condensation.Q - How does a car move?A - With a motor moving the wheels.Q - How did you finish your assignment?A - With help from my friend.Q - How did god create life?A - With natural processes.Come on Pro, you equivocated, and now you are saying that life was created BY natural processes despite your prepositional switch up.10. "I assume we all had the same designer."My response:I know, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in a curriculum...science is not in the business of assumptions, which is why we use MECHANISMS to explain HOW things occur naturally.Pro would have you think that we merely teach assumptions about evolution, but, as I have mechanistically explained, abiogenesis and evolution eliminate assumptions about the biodiversity of life on earth.Humans' chromosome 2 shows genetic fusion from older apes to us, proving common descent by modification, and all of the experiments and findings from abiogenesis adequately explain the origins of life on earth.Pro, why should we teach creationism, which you agree has no mechanistic explanation, in a biology curriculum, when we have abiogenesis with LOTS of explainable mechanisms that adequately explain the origins of earthly life?Creationism doesn't fill in the gaps in our knowledge, because Pro CANNOT and WILL NOT explain how creationism works, OR how there is a direct indication that the phenomena we observe today has any relationship to ANY supernature.I reject the resolution, that creationism should have equal focus to evolution in biology curricula, simply because creationism is unscientific, there would be no substance to all of those UNEXPLAINED ASSERTIONS to even put in equal standing in a curriculum, and abiogenesis and evolution do MORE than enough to provide valid explanations of life on earth.Organismic behavior =/= human behavior, despite Pro's conflation of the two concepts.