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

"I do not believe I have any arguments referring to the origin of life..." I took your 3f talking as an attack on evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life - my bad. "My opponent makes an interesting and amusing use of examples" My point here is that we cannot expect public schools to teach to their students improperly. Admittedly, the Elvis analogy was me having fun, but we seriously cannot ask teachers to misteach students. My point is that what must be taught is what is 'true'. In science 'truth' is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence for it. The theory of evolution is called 'theory' because in science this means that the evidence amassed in favor of the idea that we are just about as sure as we can get. "We cannot directly prove [ID] false, but we can show that it is very unlikely.." And there you have it. ID cannot be falsified. Both sides agree on this. ID is therefore not a science. Pro then says if evolution can be shown to have no holes in it, ID is unnecessary. Pro cannot show any true holes in evolution. Pro then says ID can be shown to be very unlikely. Unfortunately for Pro, fairies and unicorns cannot be proven false, just unlikely to exist. The moment Pro concedes that ID is not falsifiable, I am winning this debate on the basis that ID is not a science. This is a key issue! "My opponent also argues that public opinion does not determine what is correct..." -Here Pro tells us that public schools need to teach what parents want their kids to learn. If my parents didn't want me to learn calculus, to find out about ionic bonds, or to discover what triggered WWI, then they should not send me to a public school. Public schools must teach fact. -Furthermore, how do we decide how to teach ID? Do we simply state "a designer did it?". Should we go with Christianity? Judaism? Islam? The 48% that may have supported ID in 2007, I doubt that they were all unified in what they wanted their kids to learn. Do different school districts teach different curricula based on their population diversity? "In this case it is not about teaching the truth..." -Here's the killer. Pro's asking us to LIE to schoolchildren. To put truth in the back seat. As long as their parents are happy, who cares what the kids know, right? Wrong! The purpose of the public school system is to educate the public. This goal is defeated if we lie to kids in the classroom. I repeat that what should be taught in public schools is fact, or in the case of science, theory. "My opponent is correct, and I was well aware that I was using manipulative tactics..." So Pro concedes to using false data/manipulative tactics and then expects you to forgive this because he stated it wasn't important. Don't let him off so easy for violating debate ethics! I say that this contention is very important, more than his 1st. When nearly 100% of the scientific community accepts a theory due to the evidence behind it, that's something. 3a. -Macroevolution takes place over a longer period of time than evolution has been highly accepted. Over the 100-ish years we have postulated evolution, only bacteria could seriously macroevolve. Here's an example: http://www.pnas.org.... In 1988, scientists grew of E. Coli in an environment which contains citrate. Citrate cannot normally be digested by E. oli, but in 2008, some bacteria displayed the ability to do so. This is not only macroevolution, but the emergence of new genetic information through mutation! -Here's another key point. Pro has conceded that microevolution occurs. What's the difference between macro and micro? Microevolution over time leads to macroevolution! By accepting microevolution, we accept macroevolution. 3a (2). Pro says DNA resembles human computer programming. The assertion here is that the universe mirrors human creations. It is actually the opposite. We often look to nature to come up with new technology. Major point: my opponent says that we need empirical observations, which I provide for evolution. We have no empirical observation for ID. Pro provides no empirical observation of ID occurring. Pro completely concedes this argument! 3b. I totally explain this 'rapid evolution'. First, we have reason to believe that animal life existed pre-CE. That makes it easier for an 'explosion' to occur. Second, there is evidence for a mass extinction. In such a case, a lot of roles in the environment would be empty. Remaining creatures would evolve to fill in all these roles. Because so many roles were empty, evolution took place in many ways. Furthermore, my source asserts that the adaptive radiation in the Cambrian was no faster than at any other time. -In either example I provided, evolution takes place. My point is that a designer repeatedly designing life is ludicrous. If this is the case, where is ID today? If there was only one initial design, evolution explains the complexity of life today. Unless ID was constantly taking place, evolution again explains complexity. 3c. What is the probability in Archaebacteria? It is agreed that this domain of life most resembles ancient bacteria. What is the probability of bacteria simpler than Archaea arising? Again, how do you get this probability? 3d. Photosynthesis is not necessary. Cold-blooded animals get energy from the sun. For entropy to be violated, energy does not need to be processed into glucose, as plants do, it just needs to be flowing into the system. When I bake cake, it is not performing photosynthesis, but becoming more complex. 3e. -I have the burden of proof? You make the claim "information has never arisen" so you need proof for that. The burden of proof is on the claimant. -The E. coli which process citrates are an example of new genetic information. Malaria becoming resistant to cholroquine requires them to make new proteins. Polyploidy and duplication lead to new genetic material. 3f. -This argument is Pro's guesswork and should be discarded. Again, what about the most primitive of life? "Case for ID" Unfortunately, Pro cannot provide evidence against evolution which I have not debunked. In short: -Pro advocates teaching lies is school, as long as taxpayers are happy. -Pro concedes ID is not science, and never gives empirical evidence of it being observed. -Pro deliberately tries to mislead you. -Scientists agree that evolution is as true as science can be. -Macroevolution=microevolution over time. Pro concedes micro, and therefore macro. -Pro doesn't show that information cannot arise from mutation. E. coli have been shown to undergo macroevolution, and develop new info through mutation. -I have explained the CE. -Pro bases arguments from complexity on humans, and does not provide statistics. -Photosynthesis is not necessary to get energy from the sun. Think cold-blooded animals.