We should not teach the controversy

I wish to thank my partner for his swift opening argument. Unfortunately, he has made several critical errors that I wish to expose in this round. I wish you the best of luck. ----------------------------------------------------------------　 POINT 1: EVOLUTION IS A THEORY A. THE DEFINITION OF A THEORY To say that one rejects evolution because it is "only a theory" is rightfully absurd. Let's review the definition of the word "theory." A theory is a well-supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments, and explains them in a coherent way.[1] (Emphasis mine). In fact, I honestly do not even understand this absurd argument. I wonder if my partner even looked at the links that he even gave. Let's look at Scientific American 2009 that calls evolution a theory: "The January 2009 edition of Scientific American focuses on Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, how the theory has evolved and its powerful, far-reaching ability to explain the natural world. Following are links to the articles in this issue:..."[2] Although evolution IS a theory; that is no reason to reject such a theory. On the other hand, if it was called the hypothesis of evolution, my partner will have a coherent argument. B. IT'S A THEORY AND A FACT Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact. But before I prove that evolution is a fact, let's look at some of the other scientific facts that are "only a theory": The atomic theory - The field of physics that describes the characteristics and properties of atoms that make up matter. [3] The germ theory of disease - A theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. At first it was controversial, though now it is the foundations of modern medicine. [4] You see, to reject these well supported theories on the basis that they are only a theory is rightfully absurd. Now, let's explore some of the facts of evolution. Laurence Moran notes: "When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming." [5] Biologist Stephen Gould notes: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[6] I already provided evidence in my opening argument supporting evolution to be a fact. I will expand more in this round later on. ----------------------------------------------------------------　 Point 2- Not every scientist accepts the Darwinian Paradigm. "One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on. "[7] This is simply an appeal to authority. Next point, the NCSE recently instituted “Project Steve.” In this project, NCSE announced an invitation for scientists whose first name is Steve (or any variants of that) to submit them affirming evolution. As of today, it has over 1200 signers compared to the 800 for the discovery institute. [8] ----------------------------------------------------------------　 Point 3- Creationism does not conflict with current law: First, just because something is legal, does not mean that it should be done or that it is logical. This is called an appeal to authority. ----------------------------------------------------------------　 Point 4 – Creationism as an elective This is simply an attempt at semantics. In the opening round, it was affirmed that creationism will be taught in public schools alongside of the ToE. In other words, it would be required to learn both. [1] Fairbanks, Daniel J. "What Is Evolution?" Evolving: The Human Effect and Why It Matters. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012. 16. Print. [2] http://smu.edu...; [3] http://abyss.uoregon.edu.... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [6] http://www.stephenjaygould.org...; [7] http://www.talkorigins.org...; [8] For more on Project Steve, see http://ncse.com...