Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

Definition of Creationism I agreed to in round one-"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. " "In this debate, creationism is the belief that living organisms ORIGINATE (present tense indicative) rather than by natural processes like evolution. " The word originate could refer to any period of time. My opponent's definition says that creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation. This game my opponent is playing with words ends here. The universe is not originating in the present tense. The definition makes it clear we are talking about the origins of the universe and of living organisms. "This makes no mention how life ORIGINATED, in the past tense, rather it speaks to CURRENTLY, living organisms ORIGINATE, in the present tense, rather than by natural processes. " My opponent's definition says "that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account. " Everything about this definition indicates the past (it mentions the universe! ). The Biblical account only mentions how creation begun to exist in the past. "This is the creationism that Pro agreed to defend, and is the creationism that Pro is attempting to have taught to public school children; this is an idea that exists in opposition to natural processes such as evolution. " I know what I agreed to and whoever reads this debate will know what I agreed to. As stated in the comments, my opponent meant to put this definition of Creationism in round one: "the belief that God is always supernaturally creating everything and is always supernaturally intervening with life, not what the biblical account says, rather I prefer my opponent to just agree with whatever I say. " "Pro would agree that natural processes that explain how living organisms ORIGINATED is in direct opposition to creationism, right Pro? " No, I would not say that. Living organisms descend (not evolve) from organisms that existed in the past. The diversity comes from mating (get new breeds of dogs) and from God creating thousands of species in the beginning. "Earthly life originated by Abiogenesis. " Note to voters/readers: This topic my opponent has brought up has nothing to do with Creationism or Evolution so it really shouldn't count towards anything. a. The problem with abiogenesis is that is has many holes in the theory and there are still molecules that existed in this beginning that led to life. But then the question arises "where did the molecules come from" and then of course we are back to where we started. b. Another problem with the theory is that it violates logic. Life only comes from life. It is literally impossible to get life from something that isn't living. "The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds. " That experiment only produced half of the necessary amino acids needed for life. It only showed that it was impossible for any chemical reaction to produce all the amino acids we need to live. "So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds. " We know that half of the amino acids we need for life can come from inorganic compounds. "Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms. " According to Jerry Bergman, "to duplicate what might have happened in a primordial soup billions of years ago, scientists would need to mix the chemicals currently believed to be commonly found on the early earth, expose them to likely energy sources (usually speculated to be heat or radiation), and see what happens. No-one has performed this experiment, because we now know that it is impossible to obtain relevant biochemical compounds by this means" (. http://creation.com...). The link my opponent provided gave little information on the bacteria and to say that abiogenesis is anything but speculation is ridiculous. "Abiogenesis explains earthly life's natural origins, and unlike creationism, provides MECHANISMS that explain HOW this was done. " Abiogenesis doesn't explain anything since there are still molecules that exist in the beginning of time which still need to have been caused by something. The miller experiment failed to produce all of the amino acids needed for life and it also assumed things about the earth that may or may not have been true. It also tries to claim that life can come from nonliving things which just doesn't make sense logically. I wish I could go into this further but this just isn't what the topic of the debate is about. "Well, no mechanistic explanation isn't something to be taught in a science class, because what is it that you would teach about this creation? " Allow me to remind my opponent that evolution provides no mechanistic explanation for why life exists. He has in fact already conceded that "evolution makes no real attempt to explain how life ORIGINATED. " So evolutionist are going to have the same problem providing a mechanistic explanation for life. That said, creationism doesn't need one since life is assumed to have been created by supernatural means. "Hey kids, a divine agent created things, that's it, because I can't explain/know how, so now you're all ready for the test on creation. " Then we have the evolutionist that says "hey kids, I don't know how life started, but my interpretation of the fossils is correct because I say so. My view of course means that your lives are meaningless. .. but you should believe whatever I make up about the origins of life just because you can! " "Pro, how can this even make equal time in a biology curriculum alongside the mechanisms of abiogenesis and evolution? Seriously, Pro how are you to teach anything about this when you've admitted not knowing HOW it was accomplished. " The debate wasn't about abiogenesis. We could have had another debate on that topic if you hadn't called me a liar multiple times in the comments of this debate. Evolution has no mechanistic explanation for why life exists and creationism doesn't need one as I have already explained. "What is it that Creationism is teaching OTHER than your assertions Pro? " We both have assertions and assumptions about how life exists exists now. The fossils equally indicate either a common ancestor or a common designer. All we have is our assumptions on the matter. "How does they were designed that way amount to equal time with evolution and its constituent natural processes WITHOUT a describable mechanism? " I don't even understand this question. Creationism explains why natural processes exist, why the universe exists, and etc. .. evolution only explains where humans supposedly came from. "Really? What's the explanation? God did it, and that's it? Yes, that is exactly right. Teach students that God did it by supernatural means that we don't fully understand at this point in time. "Pro, please give us something to teach other than assertions/speculations that would acutally take up space in a curriculum! " Again, we both have only provided our assumptions about the fossil evidence. You say common ancestor. .. I say common designer. Just teach in the curriculum that they can both explain where life came from. "Ok, so Pro would have biology teach that mysterious supernatural means created natural means, and Pro would provide no idea or explanation as to HOW, so Pro would have the curriculum simply assert that this is the case, and expect students to repeat this assertion. .. there's no learning going on here Pro. " But of course, it is okay for my opponent to teach students that his assertions are fact. This is such a blatant double standard. Evolution is an explanation for life, but it has its problems and it provides no explanation for why life exists. I am for schools teaching both assertions and not teaching one as fact over the other since the evidence could go either way. "Nope, and Pro ignored descent with modification being the CORNERSTONE of the arrangement of living things. Descent with modification ELIMINATES the need for an arranger; descent with modification arranges organisms naturally. " For the one thousandth time, my opponent makes the assumption that the evidence shows descent with modification (common ancestor). If you make this assumption about life, then of course that would eliminate anything supernatural. But not everyone makes the same assumptions about life that my opponent has. "Come on Pro, you equivocated, and now you are saying that life was created BY natural processes despite your prepositional switch up. " Now this is incredibly dishonest. I made it very clear that God developed natural processes by supernatural means. We even conversed in the comments and I made myself very clear. The fact that my opponent still claims that I said this is wrong and this only shows that my opponent is only interested in winning debates instead of actually learning anything. Con should lose a conduct point hands down. Creationism should be taught for the three reasons I gave in round one. My opponent never refuted my point about the evidence of the fossils equally supporting evolution and creationism. He ignored my other two arguments because he felt like it and made this a very unenjoyable debate by continuing to misrepresent me even after clarification.