We should not teach the controversy

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. " Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University I would like to thank Microsuck for furnishing the resolutionand the reader for sifting through this rather dry and long-winded debate. Closing Arguments: 1. > For the past three rounds, my opponent has attempted to convince the reader thatevolution is a fact. Yet I have provided six non-christian sources which define evolution as a theory. I supplied a listof over 55 journals and scientific publications which describe evolution as atheory. I have delivered direct quotes from four field experts and I have shownyou over 800 names of highly capable, reasonably intelligent experts whoquestion the Darwinian paradigm. I submit that evolution is not only a theory,it could not be a fact if 800 PHDs question it’s merit. A fact must beuniversal, beyond doubt, verifiable, repeatable and observable. Evolution is atheory and it does not have exclusive access to truth in origins. Period. POINT 1 REFUTED. ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. > My opponent has defined my appeal toauthority as a “fail”. He likened creationism to denying the holocaust, as if anyone who questions Darwin is automatically an idiot. That’s quite literally the most insulting set of remarks I’ve encountered so far. Essentially, my opponent has decided to attack my intelligence, my religiousaffiliation and my character, rather than attacking creationism. He claims thatI am an indoctrinator, yet I am willing to share the classroom with evolution. I have never demanded that evolution be removed, I have never insisted thatevolutionists are stupid and I have never claimed that evolution lacks totalscientific merit. I only established that evolution is not absolute andrequires further scrutiny. My position can only be defined as compromising and open minded. My opponent, on the other hand, is calling for flagrant indoctrination. POINT 2 REFUTED. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3. > My opponent was tasked with debunking the merit of creationism. How else could hejustify why evolution has exclusive access to the public school system? Interestingly, he never once attacks a single verse in the Bible, nor does hedirectly question a single creationist theory. I had zero opposition! His singular objection is that creationism is notfalsifiable, yet he provides zero examples. Should we believe him simplybecause he used an exclamation point at the end of his rhetoric? I gave him alist of three scientific predictions made by the Biblical world view. Hefailed to even acknowledge them, yet he claims it’s not falsifiable. I literally had to spend zero time defending creationism. I was allowed to continuously attackevolution and I was met with minimal resistance. He provided a few semantichurdles, at the end of which, evolution is still a theory. CREATIONISM STANDS UNCHALLENGED. Conclusion: My opponent calls evolution a fact and I refute it with nearly a thousand verifiable sources. My opponent claims creationism is not a science, yet hefailed to provide a single case study. In fact, he ignored the three simpleevidences I provided, which anyone of scientific merit could argue full ofholes. He touched neither the Geology, nor Biology, nor Anthropology. IfCreationism is not a science, then you should have no problem dismantling it’sreasoning. My opponent had the burden to explain why creation doesn’tbelong in the class. Not only did he fail his task, he never even began an argumentagainst it. Pro’s entire debate consisted of him shielding his burden from aconstant onslaught of relevant sources and arguments. Pro ignored his burdenand completely derailed. The resolution was about why creationism should not be taught. He spent four rounds trying explaining why evolution was a fact. Even then, he failed.