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

Remember readers, check the evidence thread! "These two statements seem contradictory. .. " These statements are far from contradictory. In the first quote, I say that ID can be proven to be unlikely (not falsifiable), which I do. In the second, I say that ID is not falsifiable. There is a difference between being unlikely and being falsifiable. Pro concedes that ID is not absolutely falsifiable. Again, unicorns are not absolutely falsifiable. "The public school system should not be paid for. .. " Here we have a problem. Public schooling is a service extended by the government and is supported by taxes. If people who disagree with government programming don't pay for it, government programming would collapse. If people who didn't agree with public schools didn't pay for them, there would be no public schools (not just people who disagree with evolution). Then, provided we teach ID, what happens to the evolutionists who disagree? Do they start not paying? Public schooling is in for a tough ride no matter what. Such a 'solution' defeats itself in any scenario. "the resolution does not ask how. .. " This is a definite problem associated with teaching ID and is therefore relevant. Teaching ID will not please all 48% of ID supporters, as they are divided amongst their ideologies. Teaching ID will still leave taxpayers unhappy. While this argument does not attack ID based on its merit, it attacks teaching ID based on its results. I'd say that's fair game. "The goal of education is. .. to teach knowledge and skills that will be important in future careers. " Is teaching improper science important to future careers? Just as we expect English teachers to produce students who are skilled grammatically, science teachers must produce scientifically skilled students. We cannot teach students that scientific theory must be falsifiable and then teach them non-falsifiable ideas. I'm not stating that ID is a lie, just that Pro advocates discarding the truth, ergo teaching lies as long as taxpayers are happy. "it is significant when so many scientists support something. .. " Pro concedes that this is significant. Scientists' support definitely gives you a better idea of a theory's integrity than the support of the people. Why? Scientists are more versed in the ideas out there. "It is likely that the genetic information was already there. .. " -This case involves bacteria creating a protein which their previous genetic information could not produce without more nucleotides. Increase in information occurred. In any case, polyploidy and duplication increase the amount of information. Furthermore, much of the human genome has been attributed to viruses entering our DNA and remaining there, dormant (e). This is another way new genetic material can arise in organisms. "This is possible, considering how much DNA bacteria have today. .. " Aha! Pro implies that the amount of DNA bacteria have today is larger than before! He seems to say that because bacteria have more DNA than they used to, the E. coli modification was simply a change in information. However, if this is the case, their genetic material has grown. Pro concedes increase in genetic material. "there are some big jumps. .. " -The blood clotting cascade can actually be explained quite easily (e). Basically, there are many different triggers which trigger other triggers, eventually leading up to blood clotting (lobsters have a simple system which reacts directly to trauma). The system likely evolved in an animal with a primitive circulatory system. The two proteins which cause clotting were already in existence, as well as white blood cells which can plug leaks. When cells break under trauma, they spill all sorts of molecules, some of which prevent smooth muscle movement, aiding blood clotting. From this simple system it is easy to imagine additional triggers joining the crew. What's the advantage to these triggers? Each can trip over 20 triggers in the next step. So each additional level of triggers amplifies the speed of clotting. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually added another trigger to the cascade. -The cell wall likely began as a simple membrane, which became more and more complex, leading to today's marvel. 3c I mean the probability of something simpler than today's Archea developing into more complex life forms. Anyway, in terms of protein production, many different nucleotide bases code for the same protein - for example 6 of the 64 possible RNA codons code for Leucine, another 6 for Arginine, 4 each for Serine, Proline, Threonine and Alanine. Getting an amino acid out of DNA is easier than Pro makes it to be. 3d This only furthers my point. When animals eat and digest food, they break it down, making it less complex and giving themselves energy. This energy can be used to violate entropy. The point is that the Sun's heat provides the Earth with the energy needed to violate entropy. 3e Like I stated, we have seen new information arise in the case of E. coli, and also in viruses entering organisms. 3f While I seriously admire Pro's ability to program, it is doesn't defeat evolution. In larger populations, there are more and more individuals available to 'try' mutations. Evolution may slow down for the simple reason that the organism is very well adapted to the environment. If there is no pressure in terms of predators or climate change, few changes will 'stick' as they will not provide an advantage. The coelacanth hasn't changed much because it doesn't need to. The octopus remains fairly unchanged as well. Evolution does not always occur linearly as well. In 3.5 billion years, you will have large, unexpected mutations. In humans, every genetic disorder that we see is the human race 'trying' out a new genetic code. The difference between humans and chimpanzees is about 4%. We have a 96% similarity. "It is immoral to force someone to pay for something that he or she does not believe in. .. " Which Pro ends up doing by teaching ID. As stated, this is self-defeating. Summary 1) Intelligent Design is not a Science -In his first speech pro says "Evolution has never been observed. Science cannot function without empirical evidence, and we have never gathered any such evidence for evolution. " Not only is this claim incorrect, I cite London's underground mosquitoes and the E. coli, but I responded in my first speech that ID has never been observed/has no empirical evidence. Pro drops this in Round 2, where I bring it up again. Again, Pro drops it! -Pro also admits that ID is not falsifiable, but can be shown to be very unlikely. I have shown that it is very unlikely ID has occurred by defeating my opponent' arguments against evolution. 2) Pro Drops/Concedes: -Empirical Observations of ID -The Cambrian Explosion Argument (which means I successfully debunked this) -His assertion that nature represents human design (we can therefore agree it's the other way around) -Genetic information has never arisen (strongly implied) 3) Teaching Ought to be Proper -If teaching is about endowing kids with the proper skills for future jobs, teaching them to be bad scientists is hardly what we want to do. In all other subjects we teach 'properly' and yet we are supposed to discard it in science? Pro's solution ends up defeating public education. 4) Public/Scientific Opinion -Public opinion does not determine what should be taught - facts do. Scientific majority gives credibility to the theory. Supporters of ID are split into groups with different beliefs. The resolution is negated because ID is not a science, scientific consensus and evidence is for evolution, and teaching ID will not satisfy 48% of the population. Our right is for children to be properly educated, and teaching ID does not fulfill this requirement.