Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

I will quote what my opponent said and then I will respond. That is how I will do things in this round. "Creationism is not science. Science is the collection of observations of natural phenomena." My response to this is to quote Kepler who said that "science is thing God's thoughts after him." On another note, creationism is not meant to replace science but it is meant to explain why these natural process exist. "There is also no evidence or mechanistic explanation of anything divine or of divinity's isolated effects on natural phenomena, so creationism is irrelevant in any science subject, because science is the study of natural--not supernaturally divine--phenomena." I already gave some evidence for creationism. Creationism is just as good as an explanation for the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils as evolution is. The explanation can equally be either a common designer or a common ancestor. Since my opponent has made no attempt to disprove this claim so far my point remains valid. So creationism should be taught equally. "Without any MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW a divine agent accomplishes things, there's no reason to believe that anything "rather than natural" is occurring." Well...a divine agent would do things supernaturally so no mechanistic explanation for creation is really necessary. And of course there is reason to believe in the supernatural. Only a supernatural being could have caused the universe to exist. But that is another topic that we have already discussed in a previous debate. "There is also no need to infer divinity when it comes to scientific explanations, because explanations seek to solve mysteries; divinity is not an explanation, rather it's an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery, which is divinity itself." Well, lets take a look at what a mystery is. A mystery is "something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain" (https://www.google.com...). The problem here is that God is a mystery to you. If you don't understand a topic well enough, it may seem like a mystery. But God can be understood to a certain extent just like anything else. "All of the evidence suggests that current lifeforms on earth are all evolved descendants of prior life forms on earth." Yes, there is the evidence of the fossils and it can support a common ancestor. But again, the evidence can also be used to support a common ancestor like I argued in round one. "Creationism presupposes that the biodiversity of life that we can examine today has been that way always." Not quite right. Creationism acknowledges that species change as time goes on. In other words, there will be multiple breeds of dogs as different kinds of dogs mate with each other. Creationism merely won't allow the dog to become anything other than a dog. So creationism has no problem accounting for the biodiversity in life. A creator merely created thousands of different species. "When we teach the distribution of diverse genetics and anatomies across the vast landscape of earthly life to our students, explaining that the differences were created that way and are all unrelated to each other." Teaching children that the differences in genetics and anatomies from creationism perspective does no such thing. Creationism teaches that this differences were there because they were designed that way (so they are related by design). And this only shows the creativity of the creator. As for evolution, these differences are still related, but they happened by chance and nothing is really special about what happened. "You mean to tell me that spiders and crabs have non linking lineages?" I would tell you that they were created by the same designer and are hence related. "Aside from the above fossils, spiders and crabs have great homology, or structural similar from inheritance, which can be explained by a common descent with modification." Yes...but it can also be explained by a common designer. These two species do not have to have come from the same ancestor. They could have easily come from the same creator who made them similar. "We should be teaching our students that evolution can explain these homologous structures in crabs and spiders, because that's what the fossil, genetic, anatomic, geologic, and radiometric evidence has all indicate" It only indicates this if you make the assumption that there is a common ancestor. But again, the evidence can be equally seen from a different perspective as I have shown you time and time again. "Creationism simply does not allow an evolution of crab-->spider; this evidence would negate that the spider was divinely created at the same time as the crab, without a link betwixt." I don't see how the evidence doesn't allow these creatures to be created at the same time. Nevertheless creationism doesn't say that all creatures were created at the same time. This is a misconception my opponent has. "I'm saying that creationism does not lead us to understanding biology any more coherently, it doesn't fit the evidence, and this is unacceptable for our public school students." But it does fit the evidence as I have showed you. "Look, Pro, how are we to fit a unit on morality and purpose into a loaded curriculum? Where do morality and purpose fit with the likes of..." Well, as you noted in round one, biology is also the study of human behavior (morality) and the study of our origin. Evolution doesn't explain the universes origin and it doesn't properly explain morality. So Creationism should have a part in the curriculum since evolution fails to account for these things. Also, knowing that everyone has a purpose in life also has a tremendous affect on human behavior. That would be a good thing to focus on. Plus....all of those things you mentioned should still be taught. But a little time on Creationism is also helpful to the students. "If we're to teach "rather than by natural processes" equally to evolution and its sufficient constituents, we would be contradicting ourselves and would be failing to provide coherence to students on a number of biological concepts required by state assessments and integral to understanding basic biology." You are misunderstanding something very important. Creationism only talks about the origin of the universe. It provides us with an explanation for why life exists. It doesn't take away the natural processes that scientists have discovered. Creationism merely explains what evolution cannot and offers another (equally possible) explanation for why humans exist as they do now. "I'm also pointing out that morality and purpose are irrelevant to a biology curriculum, so Pro's "b" and "c" arguments are irrelevant; we should not equally focus on morality/purpose and evolution in a biology curriculum." They are not irreverent to the discussion. This is the second time in a debate you have dropped an (two in this case) argument I have made merely because you feel like it. Morality and purpose help us understand human behavior which is something biology is concerned with. The point is, biology cannot explain these things and Creationism can. So Creationism should be equally taught in the biology classroom. "Pro, why is morality relevant to a biology classroom?" Because it relates to human behavior. Having a purpose in life also affects human behavior. Are you going to address the arguments or do you acknowledge that Creationism does a better job explaining these things? "Pro, why should we teach rather than natural processes in a curriculum that explains natural processes?" This debate isn't about teaching children something over the other. The debate is about teaching creationism and evolution equally. Teach the natural processes and then teach creationism to explain the things that evolution can't. Evolution doesn't even have an explanation for why life exists. That seems to be an important detail since biology is the study of life. Therefore Creationism should be taught equally with evolution since it can explain why life exists (evolution can't), it can explain morality, meaning in our lives, and can equally offer an explanation for the fossils that supposedly support a common ancestor. At this point, my opponent has not addressed any of my arguments. So until he does...I really don't know what else to say.