Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

Before Rebutting Con's Interesting Argument, I will Extend my own argument. Firstly I will present a Video Source which is roughly 1 hour long, but I do not expect anybody to watch the entire video. Instead I will present some of the major points from the Video here. . http://www.youtube.com...Essentially, Creationism or Intelligent Design, (whichever you want to name it, as they are both the same Superstition based Ideology) Bases It's Attacks On Evolution on Three Pillars. These Three Pillars of Creationism/ID Are: Followed by the Debunking of each Pillar. Pillar 1: Evolution In Crisis; or the claim that scientists are quarreling over Evidence Against Evolution. This is totally False, because there is no Evidence found against Evolution so far and thus no quarrels between scientists and Absolutely No Crisis occurring in Evolution. In fact Evolution is more sound now than it has ever been in history. 95% of scientists worldwide consider it as the most proven theory on Earth. There is not the slightest bit of evidence against it being argued by any genuine scientist at present. All arguments against Evolution are religious based only. They are not scientific in any way. Pillar 2: Incompatibility: That Evolution is Incompatible with Faith In God. Which is also fallacious in that there are many Evolutionists who are also devoutly religious, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and many other religious views. They see no incompatibility. Creationist literature teaches that a person must make a choice between God and Evolution and cannot possibly believe in both. This is a False Dichotomy Fallacy. Pillar 3: Fairness: They state that it is not fair to only teach one side of a controversy in educating children. This is the one I. D. ers and Creationists are trying at the moment in legislation around the U. S. This is the Underlying Basis Of This Debate: which is also fallacious. They try to use other real controversies like Global Warming, but everybody knows they have their guns aimed at Evolution. There is No Controversy in Evolution, Creation is not a Controversy to Evolution, so they have no Argument. It's the same as saying it is unfair not to teach Superman Comics as Science. It's a False Assertion/Assumption Fallacy. Rebuttal of Con's Argument: Con States: “Of course I. D. is scientific that's common knowledge. ”Response: No it is not, it is only considered Common Knowledge to Creationists/I. D. ers to everybody with any knowledge of Science it is Pseudo-Scientific or Nonsense. Intelligent Design is a Superstition (Religious based Notion) , not Science. Con States: “Not only is Evolution obsolete but it makes no since if you take away the whole adapting to one's environment and god. ” Response: Apart from that sentence not making any real sense, Evolution is the best explanation available so far, so it cannot be obsolete, to be obsolete it must be disproved, and so far, nobody on Earth has been able to disprove Evolution. Con States: “Banning Pastafarianism would make since, since it should be taught in social studies on how people have rebelled against governments or just acted stupid. ” Response: Pastafarianism is a decoy, you could substitute it with Astrology or any other Superstition humans have, I’m simply calling Intelligent Design a Superstition, Not a Science. Rebutting Con's Points: Point 1. Earth is only 4.5 Billion years old, and the first life appeared in the form of Cyanobacteria, roughly 4 Billion years ago. The Cyanobacteria produced enough Oxygen in 2 Billion years for life to exist breathing air, without those Cyanobacteria, we would not exist, so it was not God that allowed humans to live and breath, but Cyanobacteria. We should all be thankful for the existence of Cyanobacteria, not God. . http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...Point 2. The Chance of anybody living being born is less likely than 1 in all the atoms in the known universe, yet they are here. Chances of someone winning the lottery is 1 in 8 billion or more yet somebody wins it most weeks. Probability is very misleading and using probability in such a way is Fallacious. Abiogenesis is actually highly likely, considering the early reduction atmosphere (lack of oxygen) and the nature of monomers (simple molecules) which have a natural affinity to forming polymers (more complex molecules). Meteors have bee found to contain around 70 amino acids, which are very basic building blocks of life, and it has been shown by experiments colliding these as if hitting the Earth will produce more complex molecules and thus proteins can be formed this way. Which takes care of Con's Point 3 at the same time. . http://www.nasa.gov...Point 4. Aliens would have the same debate on their planet, so aliens are not part of this argument. The Rest of Con's argument is Non-SequiturCon can show me any faults with Evolution and I will gladly debunk them. Scientists have been trying to Fault Evolution since it was conceived. If Con can show a single fault in Evolution, Con deserves a Nobel Prize in Science. Millions of scientists have tried and failed there. Essentially, Creationism and Intelligent Design are Superstitions. We cannot Teach Superstition as Science, as that is Irrational. Teaching Creation concepts and any other Superstitions such as Astrology and Pastafarianism in Science is Irrational. Leaving the only conclusion that Banning Creation from Science Classes has nothing to do with Fairness in Education. It is the only truly Rational Step to take, to ensure only Scientific concepts are taught in Science Classes. Over to you Con.