Creationism In Biology Curriculum

Before I respond to MagicAintReal"s round 3 post, I would like to respond to a point he/she made in round 2 that I was unable to respond to due to time constraints. In his summary at the end of round 2, MagicAintReal states: "Creationism requires supernature, which has not been demonstrated." The supernatural influence upon the universe and life in general can only be speculated on in the same way that we can speculate on the origin of the universe through the Big Bang Theory. I know this is a little off subject, but every theory about the origin of the universe comes from deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Consequently, a theory of origin must be built deductively on what we can observe and there are many possible variations. For example, how do we know that the Big Bang occurred naturally or was it started by a supernatural force? Going back to my last post in the previous round, we have grounds (the complexity of DNA and the minimal likelihood of its evolution into many diverse life forms) for deductive reasoning to suppose that a supernatural force was at work. Because biological theories on the diversity of life all result from deductive reasoning, a biology curriculum could and should teach creationism"s reasoning, if not its explanation, for the diversity of life on our planet. Science is totally about learning the truth about our world. However, if we only teach one theory about the diversity of life on our planet, we hinder our pursuit of the truth by insulating that theory from challenges. Challenges do not make the truth weaker. Instead, they redirect our research and studies to find a more perfect understanding of the truth. In his/her round 3 post, MagicAintReal makes a baseball analogy, asking if the origins of a baseball stadium provide an explanation of the statistics in a baseball game. My answer is yes. Look at the New York Mets. When they moved from Shea Stadium to Citi Field a couple of years ago, they immediately had a problem with their offense. The team"s home run numbers went down and every visiting team also experienced a significant drop in home run numbers at Citi Field. Why? There were a number of reasons. First, the Mets built the fences too far from the plate. Second, the Mets also forgot to take into account the wind currents above the stadium. Unlike the Yankees who purposely built the new Yankee Stadium to take advantage of a wind current, the Mets ignored it completely. Consequently, the wind current did not favor their hitters. After a full season of low home run numbers, the Mets had to move the fences in and install wind breaks on the top of the stadium. Despite their best efforts, they still struggle with the wind currents. Foundations are important for any scientific study because they have significant implications upon future characteristics and behaviors. Given the topic of this debate, it is not my purpose to engage in debating the merits of evolution versus creationism. What I am trying to show is that there are legitimate questions in current theories regarding the diversity of life on our planet that relate back to origins. Some of these questions have alternate explanations under the Creationism theory. In the search for the truth, students must be exposed to both so that they can weigh the question in their own minds. MagicAintReal also attempted to use a language analogy to show how the gaps in the fossil record do not count as a question against evolution. The difference between the evolution of a language and the evolution of life is that we have writings through history that allow us to trace a definite evolution in each language. We can trace how Latin was integrated with English, French, Italian, and French. We do not have enough evidence to trace the evolution of life forms from a select group of original creatures. The gaps in the fossil records do not show the changes that macroevolution claims. For example, we do not have a clear fossil record of the transition from dinosaurs to whales (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...). Darwin himself even speculated that whales could have evolved from bears (see passage in reference above). If so, where are the fossils of transitory life forms showing that? Where are the fossils of transitory life forms showing other evolutions through history? The gaps in the fossil record are the lack of transitory life forms that would tell us that macroevolution did occur. We have evidence in the fossil record of microevolution, but not of macroevolution. Until we find more clear evidence in the fossil record of transitory life forms, the theory of macroevolution must continue to be questioned and researched in the field of biology. Until we gain more evidence of transitory life forms in the fossil record, we must teach alternative theories in the public school curriculum because we have not obtained positive proof of macroevolution. Macroevolution can only be classified as an extrapolation of the proven theory of microevolution. However, since we have not found fossils indicating transitory life, we must only consider macroevolution a hypothesis or theory open for question and comparison. MagicAintReal also uses the process of abiogenesis to counter my argument that DNA was very unlikely to evolve naturally. There are two aspects to this argument that I would like to address. First, life has already started. We have identified definite species. Each definite species group possesses a distinct DNA structure that differentiates it from other species groups. For another species group to evolve from that species group, the DNA structure would have to be "reconfigured" through mutations. The likelihood of this occurring successfully is extremely low as I pointed out in the previous round. Consequently, DNA is extremely relevant in the evolutionary process and presents one of the major challenges to it. Second, most of the experiments done on abiogenesis have been done in labs. Sure, they have shown that it is possible for life to originate from non-living matter, but how? The combinations of these organic compounds had to be directed by the scientists conducting experiments (http://www.algemeiner.com...#). Consider that for a moment. Use the laboratory as a mini-universe for a minute. The environment is extremely controlled. The scientists represent "supernatural" powers within the universe as they "create" the situation for these life forms to develop. On the other hand, we have yet to find evidence of abiogenesis occurring naturally in the world around us. If it could take place naturally, shouldn"t we be able to find evidence of it occurring naturally in our world? We know that it can happen within a laboratory under controlled circumstances and human (supernatural) direction. However, can it occur in the hard world we live in? If we cannot find evidence for that in our world, what basis do we have to suppose that it occurred billions of years ago? If anything, the "supernatural" influence of humans in the laboratory makes it more likely that there was supernatural influence at the origins of life In conclusion for this round, I would like to say that creationism does not have to be taught as a more correct theory than evolutionism. However, it should be included in the biology curriculum as a possible alternative to some of the questions regarding evolutionism on which we have reasonable doubts. We cannot insulate a theory. It is counterproductive to science. We must constantly challenge on theories to develop a more correct understanding of the workings of our universe. Therefore, creationism must be included in the biology curriculum even if, for no other reason, it serves to guide and drive research and study to strengthen the conclusions we have already arrived at.