Evolutionism vs Creationism

SCIENCE VS. PHILOSOPHY"I've never tried to claim Creationism as a scientific theory and that doesn't make it any less reasonable, possible or 'theoretical'. ""As there are scientific theories, there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones. They just approach different questions or the same questions from different perspectives. "The problem is, that simply showing that an idea makes sense doesn't make it true. That is Ad Ignorantium (i. e. saying that something is true because we can't prove it to be false)Also, Evolution is perfectly logical as well, leading us into the next section. SUPPOSED "FLAWS" IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"All the proofs pro Evolution support God's intention to create the illusion of Evolution and an origin in a distant past. "As I pointed out last round, the combination of fossil evidence and DNA evidence proves Evolution almost to the point of certainty. "the lack of transitional fossils"There are overwhelming amounts of transitional fossils [1]. "and the unreliability of random mutations being able to produce such complex organisms,"Mutations are random, but natural selection is not [2]. With every beneficial mutation, natural selection evolves the population as a whole just a little bit. Over millions of years, evolution can change a population into a totally new species. Over hundreds of millions of years, those species can begin to look radically different from each other. "I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach and how science can't disprove Creationism. "However, evolution doesn't NEED to be theologically sound because it can function without the presence of a God. If we were talking about theistic evolution, then we could argue over that subject, but when considering naturalistic evolution, theological soundness is irrelevant. Thus, having refuted all of Pro's contentions, Evolution has been proven to be logically valid. In conclusion, if we have two logical theories, and only one of them is supported by evidence, we must accept that one over the other, since the baseless has no advantage over the evidenced. Pro needs to provide some sort of empirical evidence for Creationism beyond showing its logical validity. CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS"Creationism and Evolution are two possible theories to explain the origin of life. Even if the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable"Yes. They are both logically valid. But only one is proven. The other is not. Pro claims that the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable, but she, so far, has NOT provided any such arguments so far. I strongly urge her to do so next round. "It shows children that the human knowledge and science are not absolute and are far from discovering all the mysteries of the universe. "It is true that there is no such thing as definitive proof in science. However, this does not mean that unproven conjectures can compete with scientific theories. In most cases, students ARE taught competing theories, but only when both have substantial amounts of evidence. My opponent has also devoted a large chunk of her argument to showing why information about religion should be taught in school, but this is unnecessary because 1) in many places, such courses are already offered as electives, and 2) the resolution of the debate relates to specifically Biblical Creationism; not religion in general. "Many evolutionists criticize Creationists claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them! "My opponent has not really done much to show where the "flaws" in the theory of evolution lie. I encourage her to do so next round, in addition to her evidence for Creationism. HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONPro has written a long, and rather well-crafted essay about the development of DarwinismHer major premise is that scientists are especially defensive of the supposedly weak theory of Evolution simply because it is the major thing which separates science from religion. While this is probably true to an extent, in the sense that scientists are rather overprotective of it, Evolution really is very well-evidenced, and Pro has not really given any organized arguments against it. Again, I strongly urge Pro to do so next round. CONCLUSIONPro still must show empirical evidence of Creationism for it to be able to compete with Evolution. Pro still must show why Evolution is a "flawed theory". SOURCES:[1] . http://rationalwiki.org...[2] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...