We should not teach the controversy

"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science." Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry Pro Said: "Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact." Rebuttal: As per the online dictionary, fact is defined as a verifiable truth, or reality. [3] The associated thesaurus lists "fact" as an antonym to theory. [4] Theory and fact are intrinsic opposites, by definition alone. This is not semantics, this is an established reality. It is a fact (No pun intended). The word "theory" is synonymous with: Scheme,Suspicion, Conjecture,Dogma,Impression,Guess,Feeling and Assumption. Calling it anything else is manipulation, nay, semantics. Conclusion: In round two I established that evolution is a theory by providing a massive list of secular authorities that define it as such. My opponent has not only failed to reject my argument, he stands in agreement with it. As quoted from round three:"Although evolution IS a theory; that is no reason to reject such a theory." Dear opponent, it is not my burden to reject evolution. You object to ghost arguments. My burden is to establish reasonable doubt on your established resolution that evolution has exclusive right to the classroom. Nobody in this debate has attempted to remove evolution from the schools. I simply desire a fair exchange of ideas in the public education arena. Even your very biased sources claim: "Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." [Round 3, Opponent Source 6] While we clearly differ in opinion on this "fact" that Mr. Gould is attempting to establish, I would agree that a debate on rival theories should be encouraged in the classroom, much like you've agreed to in this public setting. Pro established: Point 2 - Project Steven Rebuttal: As per the Social Security administration, one in ten boys born in the 1960s was named Steven [1], making roughly 10% of all 50 year old U.S. Doctors a "Steven". Today, that name is assigned to 1,137,990 people, making it the 18th most popular name in this country [2]. Had this project been called Solomon, Markus, Darius, Vaughn, Roland or Raphael then the purpose of this study would have utterly failed. Project Steven does not reflect the true following of evolutionary thinking. It establishes the commonality of a single name. It's a manipulated data-set. This kind of pseudo-science has saturated the evolutionary paradigm for decades. Manipulation of data, withholding evidence or sheer lying has established evolution as a corrupt, dishonest paradigm. Consider, if I established a Project Robert, over 25 names could be pulled from the Dissent from Darwin list alone. If I established a project Jesus Christ the Nazarene, I would win 100% of all available names to my case and proudly proclaim "everyone believes in creation". This is not science, it's a disingenuous manipulation of data. Conclusion: Project Steve enlisted .001% of all US Stevens to sign their list. What do the other 99.999% think? The project is flagrantly boasting a minority vote. What a confusing proclamation for the rational observer. Is this project design to aid or injure your case? Pro established Point 3- "An Appeal to authority..." Rebuttal: Absolutely. Any attempt to indoctrinate my children to a single point of view will be met with legal action. I am not the "picket sign" Christian that condemns you to hell. I trust the sufficiency of the Gospel to do it's work. I simply desire that my children get access to my world view in the classroom. Sending me to a private, Christian academy is not the answer. I barely make enough money to pay the bills. Legal action, or "an appeal to authority" is an absolute requirement. No court case concerning this subject was ever void of secular defense. Your side invokes legal action with matched fervor. It is hypocrisy to deny me my day in court. Indoctrinate - to teach systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically Pro said- Allowing creationism as an elective "is simply an attempt at semantics. In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE. In other words, it would be required to learn both." Rebuttal: My opponent plays semantics by the same token. The resolution's active word is "should", not "will". If you read the above quote and compare it to the actual round one definition, you'll see that an elective study credit is within the guidelines of the debate rule. It is such a reasonable suggestion, that my opponent had no choice but to amend the rules. Again, this plays in to the deceptive nature of evolutionist morality. Actual Round one statement: Teach the controversy: By this, I mean that the literal interpretation of Gen. 1 should be taught along side of the ToE. Manipulated re-quote: In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE. Conclusion: By my opponents own defined rule, he has broken the conduct established in round one. No Semantics. This is clear evidence that Pro would rather play word games than meet me on a level playing field. Suppression through manipulation. Any unbiased observer must account for this clear breach in conduct. For your review, a few scientific conclusions from the Genesis world view: 1.> Geology - The oldest desert must be fairly young, due to a global submersion of flood water. Fact:The Sahara Desert is less than 4,400 years old [5]. The Nambi desert, once dated at 55 million years, was recently redated using ground penetrating radar. As per the Geology Association of America, the oldest sand layer in no more than 5,700 years old. [6] 2.> Anthropology - If the earth flooded, as described in Genesis, then some remnant lore must exist. Fact: 35 such stories exist and their similarities are fascinating. How can these stories be that similar, yet be separated by several thousand miles (including oceans).[7] 3.>Biology - Unique biological constructs must exist with no obvious predecessor. Fact- Mimic Plants have no evolutionary predecessor. The Carrion flower emits the smell of rotten flesh and dung to attract dung beetles [8]. The symbiosis requires a gradual, evolutionary stepladder. In fact, both species must have evolved side-by-side for millions of years in unchanged climates to establish this relationship. It is literally impossible. The Bee orchid mimics a bee with such accuracy that a male bee will attempt to mate with the flower, thus pollinating the species [8]. What is this flower's predecessor? Perhaps the spider orchid, which assumes a similar role, yet with a different insect altogether. By any measure of logic, these plants are designed. Evolution cannot account for this brilliant symbiosis. The Bible can. Conclusion: Just these three examples show that predictions can be made from the Biblical world view. It does not establish proof or fact, yet it is scientifically sound and deserving of the same scrutiny as evolutionary sciences. http://www.ssa.gov...;[1] http://names.mongabay.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://thesaurus.com... [4] http://geology.gsapubs.org...; [5] http://www.freechristianteaching.org... [6] http://www.nwcreation.net... [7] http://www.google.com...; [8]