Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

My opponent didn't seem to understand a single thing I wrote in the last round. But we have spoken in the comments and I think we have come to some sort of understanding. So let us get right into it. "Creationism is a belief that exists in opposition to natural processes AND it also explains why these natural processes exist? Bogus." This is merely a case where my opponent does not understand the definition he gave of Creationism in round one. His definition states that the universe and living organisms ORIGINATE from specific acts of divine creation as in the BIBLICAL account. The Bible does record life originating by the supernatural acts of a deity...but notice how the Bible never takes away the natural processes that exist now? For example, even though God created Adam and Eve in a divine way he still commands them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). In other words, God tells them to mate. So the natural processes do not disappear with the creationism account. "Pro, if creationism claims that life originated RATHER THAN BY NATURAL PROCESSES, how does that then explain those natural processes?" You just answered your own question. Life (including natural processes) originated by supernatural means. "Oh and I don't give a crap about what Kepler said about science and god; I don't just listen to scientists; I listen to evidence, and merely quoting Kepler to show that creationism is science is some whack appeal to authority, which I find silly here." I was giving you another way people see science. Not everybody has the same assumptions you have about the world when you look at the evidence. People have different worldviews than you do. "While fossils do an amazing job of classifying animals and proving evolution, the main evidence is in fact the genetic evidence that CONFIRMS the homology of inherited structures from ancestors." I am going to need more explanation on that. I have always had the impression that genetics supports the biblical account. After all, you would expect more genetic diversity with evolution... "The problem with this analogy is that ships don't make other ships, airplanes don't reproduce airplanes, and, in fact, each and every car that is created doesn't require any previous car's existence." That is the point. It doesn't support evolution. The analogy supports creationism. The arrangement of living things into groups supports a designer instead of a common ancestor. "Organisms are ONLY reproduced by organisms that precede them, so unlike designed automobiles, organisms descend from other organisms, and this is where their characteristics come from, which speaks to descent with modification." The analogy was meant to show that the evidence of the fossils could be seen from a different perspective. The car analogy was meant to show that things are created into groups just like the fossils show. Of course cars cannot reproduce...but humans can. In other words, the analogy merely shows that life was designed. It was not meant to take away the fact that organisms descend from organisms that lived before them (not talking about common ancestry here). "ALL characteristics of an automobile are added by an external, non-genetically related agent." That is correct. What is your point? The car does however show that its designer was creative, resourceful, and etc...And humans would be the same way. "Organisms descend from genetically related agents. So, the way that we've classified living things, like vertebrates and tetrapods, has been done by inherited homologous structures indicated by fossil and genetic evidence." I agree that organisms that exist now descended from organisms that lived in the past. In other words, I agree that humans that live now descended from humans that lived in the past. But the whole thing about common ancestry is just one way of looking at the evidence as I have already discussed at length. "Hey Pro, if I put a car engine inside of an airplane, is it still an airplane? What if I add wings to a car, is it still a car? Where's creationism's line between cars and non cars and how does it relate to organisms' genetic relationships within their taxonomic rank?" The link is that they were designed by the same creators (humans) and that they each reflect the creativity and the intelligence of the makers. These machines were also made of the same components (for the most part). The analogy wasn't meant to show the anything about an organisms taxonomic rank. "If an organism's genetics have genetic remnants of their ancestors, which is predicted by the homology in their anatomic structures, we can make a greater classification that has that organism with other organisms who have inherited these similar structures from similar organisms." Or we can say that the organisms were made similarly. Although, this is not to say that people do not inherit genes from their parents. I am just saying that species may be related in the sense that they were created by the same being. You don't have to look at the evidence and assume we all came from the same ancestor. "Pro would have us believe that lacking a mechanistic explanation isn't a mystery, and that god is only a mystery to me." Not quite. I would agree that humans can not completely comprehend how a creator created the universe. But the cause itself (God) is something we can understand (to an extent like everything else) as all powerful, all knowing, and etc...And knowing these things takes away some of the things we do not fully understand. "Pro, save yourself right now and simply explain HOW god created life to remove the mystery of your divine agent's actions and existence; without an explanation, we still have a mystery as Pro defined." First of all, evolution provides no explanation for the origins of life. So in this regard, I have the upper hand. So it looks like you have a mystery to solve. As for creationism, since God is all powerful and the most creative being in the universe, it is reasonable to say that he created life. "Ok, so because we know that all organisms descend from pre-existing organisms, Pro conceding common ancestry's proof in the fossils is a concession of genetic common descent rather than descent by a common creator; this is a pretty major concession by Pro." If my opponent bothered to read a single word in my response he would know that I said that the evidence of the fossils can equally support common ancestry and a common designer. "The definitions have creationism as "rather than by natural processes such as EVOLUTION" yet Pro claims that species change as time goes on; sounds like evolution to me." First of all, I did not ignore any definition. I already explained this at the beginning of this round. But my opponent just didn't understand his own definition. I said that species change in the sense that dogs will mate and produce new breeds of dogs. As for evolution, my job here is not to disprove any aspect of evolution. My job is to argue that creationism and evolution should be taught in a biology classroom equally. "Even if you want to claim the stupid "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't" argument, both micro and macro evolution satisfy evolution's definition in this debate, which means Pro concedes that evolution occurs, which is not the position he agreed to defend; rather than evolution CANNOT include evolution." I have no idea what my opponent is talking about. My job in this debate is to argue that creationism and evolution should be taught equally. My opponent seems to be changing the resolution of this debate. He did that in the last debate we were in as well. I have no problem with natural processes occurring today and neither does creationism. Creationism merely explains whether these processes came from (who designed them...although not the speculative common ancestry parts). "Also Pro, can you explain the specific act of divinity, per the definition of creationism, that allowed for these changes that you agree take place? Again, without a mechanistic explanation, we are left in the dark with your mysterious life-creating divinity and its actions." The creator made life with these natural processes. It is that simple. "And if Pro agrees that these changes happen by natural processes, Pro is no longer defending creationism for a biology curriculum, instead Pro is affirming that evolution occurs as predicted." It depends on which changes you are referring to. Creationism would say that the natural processes that exist were developed by a designer. But some of the natural processes you have been talking about are mere speculation. "How can we teach equally that the differences between organisms happened by specific acts of divinity, rather than by natural processes such as evolution, AND continue to teach that these differences happened by natural processes such as evolution?" My opponent claimed that creationism should not be taught because the difference were created that way and that somehow makes organisms unrelated. I responded by pointing out that wouldn't be the case. They would be related in the sense that they had the same maker. And remember, creationism focuses on the origin of life. It doesn't take away natural processes that exist now. "Why does the evidence of fossils for crabs and spiders not support a common ancestor in this case Pro?" It can equally support a common designer and a common ancestor. That is why they should be taught equally. "Evidence needs not my assumptions." The evidence of the fossils show that organisms are related. You assume this means we all share a common ancestor and I assume we all had the same designer. I can talk about apes later...running out of characters. "Nothing mentions morality, even though Pro conflated human behavior with morality, and nothing mentions HUMAN BEHAVIOR Pro." Your definition did mention organisms behavior so my point still stands.