Creationism In Biology Curriculum

Thanks Pro for accepting. First, I reject the resolution that creationism should be a major part of the biology curriculum in US public schools. Second, I need to be up front and mention that I am a high school teacher in (I can't mention the county) Maryland, USA, so this resolution directly associates me...I'm sayin' I'm obviously biased here. However, I think my factual arguments are easily digested. Now, on to Pro's arguments: I agree with Pro that creationism doesn't need to be religious; this is not my contention with creationism in biology class at all. I further agree that creationism can be taught without advocating for a certain religion. Pro imagines himself writing a biology textbook including creationism: "Two major theories exist for the foundation and development of our universe: the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 and the theory of Creationism. The theory of evolution states that the universe and all species of organisms arose and were developed through the natural selection..." My response: I'm glad Pro isn't writing any biology textbooks for real. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with our universe's origins, and neither does biology. The "foundation and development of our universe" is a matter of cosmology, not biology. The big bang theory explains the origins of our universe, while the theory of evolution only explains the biodiversity of life on earth. The theory of evolution doesn't even explain the origins of life on earth; abiogenesis explains that. Biology is the study of life on earth; biology is not the study of the origins of our universe or the origins of the first living cell. So I would reject Pro's idea of a biology textbook, because it wouldn't contain much biology, and it would have incorrect descriptions of known scientific concepts. Pro mentions my contention with creationism: "The theory of Creationism states that the universe and everything in it was created by a supernatural being." My response: Science is the collection of observations and explanations of natural phenomena. By definition, supernatural is not natural, and therefore is unrelated to the study of natural phenomena. Biology incorporates and studies natural explanations for the biodiversity of living organisms on earth. By incorporating supernatural explanations, we are by definition out of the scope of biology and other observations/explanations of natural phenomena. Also, without any MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW supernature accomplishes things, there's no reason to believe that anything supernatural is occurring. I also need to reference the definition of creationism for this debate, creationism - living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation rather than by natural processes such as evolution. So, Pro says: "However, [creationism] also incorporates some principles of evolution, specifically microevolution (changes in allele frequencies), to explain changes in the characteristics of species over times..." My response: This doesn't sound like "rather than by natural processes such as evolution" to me. Pro is misusing creationism. Microevolution is a natural process, which does not include divine acts, so creationism in this debate must not include microevolution or else we're not debating creationism (rather than by evolution) per this debate. Let me get down to it. Creationism is just not scientific, thus it is not a scientific theory. There is no evidence or mechanistic explanation of anything supernatural or of supernature's isolated effects on natural phenomena, so creationism is irrelevant in any science subject, because science is the study of natural--not supernatural-- phenomena. There is also no need to infer supernature when it comes to scientific explanations, because explanations seek to solve mysteries; supernature is not an explanation, rather it's an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery, which is supernature itself. Pro continues: "Evolution might be the generally accepted view of the foundation of the universe by the scientific community." My response: Well, listen to this member of the scientific community; evolution is not the accepted view of the foundation of the universe. Evolution only speaks to the biodiversity of life on earth; none of the textbooks I have ever used in biology have ever mentioned the origins of the universe ever, because that is a different discipline altogether called cosmology. Pro adds: "By not learning Creationism in the US public school system, students are not being given a complete picture of the universe." My response: We're only talking about biology curriculum. Though I would reject creationism being taught in any science class, this debate is only about the biology curriculum; in biology, we don't need a complete picture of the universe. To conclude: 1. Pro's incorrect characterization of biology as the study of "the foundation of our universe" highlights the poor reasons provided to allow creationism in the biology curriculum. 2. While creationism attempts to explain the origins of the universe, biology does not. While creationism lumps the universe and life into the same discipline, science has clearly divided these concepts into different disciplines. 3. Creationism requires supernature, which has not been demonstrated. Being that science is the study of natural phenomena, supernature does not qualify for a science curriculum. 4. Remember that the resolution mentions "a major part of the biology curriculum." If we're to go with what Pro has given us, then the origin of the universe, an incorrect characterization of the theory of evolution, and supernature would be allowed in a major part of the biology curriculum. I reject that creationism should be a major part of the biology curriculum, because it is unscientific given its requirement for supernature and its inability to account for the biodiversity of life on earth.