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

"I have created a thread where I will post my sources... I invite Pro to post evidence there too." I will do so. "Discard all of Pro's arguments dealing with the origin of life." I do not believe I have any arguments referring to the origin of life. I have avoided using them because I want to debate about evolution, not the origin of life. I agree that if I make an argument about the origin of life, it should be discarded. {blockquote}Contention One: Public Schools Ought to Only Teach Science in Science Classes{/blockquote} My opponent makes an interesting and amusing use of examples. However, no one seriously believes that time-traveling aliens kidnapped Elvis. See my first contention, "Education is Public." {blockquote}ID is not falsifiable.{/blockquote} We cannot directly prove it false, but we can show that it is very unlikely. If evolutionary theory is shown to have no holes, then it is unlikely that an IDer created modern life because an IDer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life. My opponent responds to my first contention with two counter-arguments. The first states that the poll results are outdated. I agree that the Gallup poll is more up to date. However, since such a significant portion of the population still believe in ID, it should be taught as an alternative theory, and not neglected simply because it has 1% less support than evolution. My opponent also argues that public opinion does not determine what is correct. I am not arguing that it does. I am arguing that since schools are publicly funded, we should teach what parents want their kids to learn, which is ID nearly half the time. In this case it is not about teaching the truth; instead, it is about pleasing the taxpayers. So to be fair to the taxpayers, both ID and evolution should be taught. My opponent responds to my second contention using data from the consensus. My opponent is correct, and I was well aware that I was using manipulative tactics. The voter should remember that in my previous post, I stated that this contention was not very important. 3a. This is microevolution, taking place over a short period of time. Macroevolution, however, has never been observed. 3a (2). But we do have evidence for ID. There are elements of the universe that mirror elements that have been designed by humans. For example, DNA resembles computer code. 3b. My opponent explains what happened during the CE, but does not refute my point that life evolved too rapidly within a short timespan. -My opponent offers two scenarios for how ID could explain the CE. There is no reason why an IDer would only create life one time; both of my opponent's explanations involving ID are valid. In the second one, both abiogenesis and ID are involved, so both should be taught. 3c. Many proteins in a modern animal's body contain hundreds of amino acids. Even with evolution over billions of years, the probability of each one of the thousands of proteins arising is very low. The human body has around 26,000 different proteins, and each contains many amino acids. The number of possible protein combinations is immense, and the probability of getting it right is incredibly low, even given billions of years. 3d. In order for living things to be able to get energy from the sun, they must have some form of photosynthesis. But there is no way in which photosynthesis could develop without already having energy to develop it with. There is therefore no way in which photosynthesis could evolve. 3e. Information not rising is simpler than information rising, so you have the burden of proof. -Bacterial mutations do not necessarily create new information. They only modify or rearrange existing information. 3f. This argument was not intended to deal with the origin of life. Instead, it was intended to deal with the probability of complex life evolving from very simple life. -I was guessing, based on the arrangement of molecules in the body. I didn't do any elaborate calculations. Case for ID: My case for ID is a case against evolution. ID is currently the only alternative to evolution with any real support. ID can explain what evolution cannot. When a point of evolution is shown to be an inadequate explanation, ID can offer a valid explanation.