Resolved: Biblical Creation Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution in Public High School Biology

I am happy to continue this debate with GenesisCreation, looks like it should be very interesting. We begin with my opponent claiming that biological phenomena does not oppose the Genesis account of creation. This is something I believe I am well able to refute, but such an act would be unnecessary on my part. I can assume this is the case and it will in no way mean the Genesis account of creation or any deistic influences should be taught in the classroom, as there must be some positive evidence behind an idea before it is worthy of being taught as science. If we treated this any other way, we'd have to teach nearly everything that hasn't been disproven, even my example theory of quantum gravity being caused by undetectable elves. Like the assumptions my opponent asserts about Genesis, that elf theory is not contradicted by science, and would explain a phenomenon. It is simply impractical to lower the standards of what is taught down to the level where creationism or intelligent design is taught as science. At this point, there is little more I actually need to say in order to refute my opponent. All of his other words are spent attempting to undermine the validity of the theory of evolution and the fact that macro-evolution occurs. Even if my opponent were able to completely disprove every last aspect of the theory of evolution and every fact it is based upon, creationism and intelligent design would come no closer to being considered science. Since my opponent offers no evidence and no scientific basis to consider what he is arguing for as science, it is therefore thoroughly unjustified to include it in a science classroom. While Pro has done little to actually advance his case, I will still for the sake of being thorough rebut his other points. First, he claims that fruit flies within a month can create at least 2048 generations. He doesn't have any actual sources for this claim however, and his own sources undermine this point. Most of the information about fruit flies he gets from the Intelligent Design website "arn.org", and it cites a study done by Molly Burke. The arn.org only links to the abstract, but I will link to the full study here: http://ftp.eebweb.arizona.edu... Back to the generations claim. This study only worked with 600 generations of fruit flies, and began breeding them in 1991. The study was published in 2010. I believe my opponent's claims are thoroughly mistaken on how fast generations are created in the fruit fly population. Now let's look at this paragraph given by my opponent: In fact, the most recent study of 600 generations of fruit flies yielded such disappointing results that the scientists are largely concluding that "the Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate to account for large-scale transformation - these research findings provide empirical support for such doubts." While my opponent attributes this quote to the arn.org article, some may be under the impression that this is a quote from an actual scientist. Instead, this is the complete quote from the article: "Many scientists have long suspected that the Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate to account for large-scale transformation - these research findings provide empirical support for such doubts." This isn't a scientist making the claim, but rather the opinion of the author, one that is itself uncited. Where does the author get that scientists have long suspected this? Certainly it isn't from the study, because the author grossly misrepresents the study, as well as a separate article about said study. Despite what the arn.org article asserts, the study does not provide empirical evidence that evolution cannot produce large-scale transformations over time. What it does do, according to one of the sources cited by arn.org, is show that our biological processes are a bit more complex, that there won't be a single gene for each adaptation but several. [1] Here is a quote from that source (a quote left out by the arn.org article): "Burke found evidence of evolution in more than 500 genes that could be linked to a variety of traits, including size, sexual maturation and life span, indicating a gradual, widespread network of selective adaptation." The study was not about "macro-evolution", as my opponent's claims, but rather how evolution worked. The conclusion of the study was that a single mutation didn't pop up and then sweep through the population, but that the actual process was more complex than that. Still a "Darwinian" or "evolutionary" process, despite the article's misinterpretation. The study was not trying to develop something "other than a fruit fly". It doesn't work like that. My opponent seems not to realize that macro-evolution is simply a great deal of micro-evolution. You cannot have one without the other. Or as geneticist and Evangelical Christian Francis Collins puts it: " Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics." [2] Dr. Collins is not talking about "micro" evolution here. He's talking about common descent. Macro evolution is a fact, we know it as well as we know germs cause disease. Let me summarize everything here for you, by directly answering my opponent's specific questions and arguments, just to be sure I covered everything. "Why should Genesis take a 'back seat', nay, 'get out of the vehicle entirely', if Macro-evolutionary experimentation yields literally no positive results?" Because we have overwhelming proof for common descent, while there is no evidence and no test that could show an intelligence was behind any biological process. " A question for my opponent, 'How many generations did it supposedly take to evolve a Chimpanzee (or similar ancestor) into a modern human?'" The answer is: We did not evolve from Chimpanzees. As far as "a similar ancestor" of which all humans and Chimpanzees are descended from, about 250,000 generations according to Richard Dawkins, over the course of 6-7 million years [3]. " The only objection against the Genesis account is the unobserved nature of God." No, the objection (one of many) is that there is no way to scientifically verify that the hand of God or any intelligent life form other than humanity had a hand in anything having to do with biology. "If we are to disallow the Genesis account because we cannot test God, observe God and repeat God according to the scientific method, then we must dismiss every aspect of biological sciences which can likewise not be tested, observed and repeated." Right, which is includes only nothing. Again my opponent misunderstands science, and thinks something has to be directly observed in order to count as observation. There is an overwhelming number of scientific tests we can perform to verify that we evolved from another species, and as Francis Collins is famous for saying, the genetic evidence alone is enough to scientifically prove it. "This debate is not about the scientific merit of biological theory or truths in origins. It’s about fair access to ideas." If you're argument is "science class should include things that have nothing to do with science because some people believe in it" I think that's a bad argument. [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2] http://biologos.org... [3] Dawkins, R (2004) The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-7528-7321-0