How to debate the "Evolution Should NOT be taught in public schools" perspective?

The first thing to do is to do a little research and find out that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept the theory of evolution as the central organizing theory for the biological sciences. (You probably should familiarize yourself with the overwhelming amount of data that supports the theory of evolution just in case that issue comes up.)Then note that most of the people who are against the theory of evolution are against it because it conficts with their religious beliefs; only very rarely will you find someone who rejects the theory of evolution after they have carefully examined the scientific issues (unless they have examined the issues through a previously acquired religious filter).Therefore, the only reason to avoid teaching the theory of evolution is because it conflicts with a certain religious sect's religious beliefs (and a religious sect that comprises a minority of Christians, it might be added).So, by avoiding the teaching of evolution the public school district would in effect be promoting the establishment of a religion, in contradiction to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I don't believe that I am making this up; the courts have actually ruled on this, if I recall correctly.Of course, the Constitutional issue would only apply to U.S. public schools, but the argument could be modified for other countries if one would also add an argument about the desirability of neutrality of education in regards to religion.Added by edit:By the way, here is a more emotional screed that I wrote against giving in the the Religious Right one even a minor matter like evolution in the public schools, although it might be, er, out of place in a high school debate.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-Mar-2006 11:36 PM {I think I have to declare this message to be off-topic and/or contrary to the intent of the topic. I point out and stress that This Chister is being called upon to debate a side of the issue that apparently isn't actually The Chister's personal perspective. See message 2. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-06-2006 06:48 PMAdded by edit:Interesting. Moose's comments seem to have overwritten an addition that I wrote when I recognized my error here.At any rate, I will try to add, again, my advice to check out Answers in Genesis for material that may be helpful.-- ChiropteraThis message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-Mar-2006 11:52 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Let the science teaching continue to erode until the US sees another "sputnik" day and then panics when they realize that things like biological engineering have slipped out of their grasp and it is India, the EU, China etc that are the world leaders.

---

And Canada, too, eh, Ned? I suspect ulterior motives here.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

As I suggested before (before my additions to a previous post were overwritten by admin comments), I think another tact to take in the debate would be one of fairness.Some people do not accept the theory of evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs. In fact, their religious beliefs are so strong that they find the theory of evolution to be offensive. Some of these people are so convinced that anything contrary to their religious tenets are the work of Satan that the theory of evolution frightens them.So, you might be able to make an argument that teaching the theory of evolution takes tax dollars from some people to teach something contrary to their religious beliefs; but I think this should be only a minor point -- a more important point is that one function of the public schools to promote social unity and to foster an evironment where everyone is respected and can feel comfortable.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I don't quite agree, Mallon. I think that he should take this assignment seriously and do the best that he can. It is often very enlightening (and helpful to your own side) to be able to debate an issue from the other side.Of course the facts are on the side of evolution, but even if Chister doesn't want to go into a goopy argument involving epistemology, he might still be able to make an argument based on social values and "fairness".I think that this is a good assignment. I hope that a creationist got the pro-evolution side of the debate, and that the teacher has warned both sides that if either side doesn't take their arguments seriously then she will grade them accordingly.Edited to correct Chister's name.Edited again to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-Mar-2006 07:34 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

I think there are two distinct ways the "anti-evolution" side can be argued.

​

1) Evolution and the theory of evolution is bad science, and thus shouldn't be taught in the public schools.

​

I think this is the argument the "pro-evolution" side is going to expect and is going to prepare for.

---

I would have another reason for not going on this route, and that is that evolution is actually pretty good science. I got the impression that the Chister is familiar with this fact, and so if he were to try to present evolution as bad science then he would be presenting things he knew were untrue as facts. I suspect that this is not the intention of the debate. (Of course, the Chister may be unfamiliar enough with the theory of evolution so that the pseudo-scientific ramblings of AiG look plausible, in which case he could in good conscience present this case). I think that the Chister should not present any "facts" that he knows to be be untrue. That is very different, of course, from arguing a subjective opinion with which he doesn't agree, which is what I and several others are suggesting.The strategic point, that the pro-evolution side may not be expecting this, would be an added bonus.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Congratulations.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

What happened is what happens if two people are editing a message at the same time. The one who submits last gets their version posted.

---

That's what I figured must have happened.

I wouldn't take this tact because I know that it is flawed; it relies on a basic ignorance of how science works, and what the theory of evolution is. However, someone who doen't know any better might be able to argue it in good conscience, and if the opponents in the debate don't know any better then it may even work to help achieve a victory (if the debate is being scored to determine a winner).

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The Chister is finished. But I understand your point. I was (perhaps too subtly) trying to goad taters into starting a new topic.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Is this what Jesus would have done?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Sort of combining this with what crashfrog said, but when a religion teaches "truths" that are clearly factually wrong, then the religion is pretty much self-mocking.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

I was wondering that, too, but reading his subsequent posts, I think that Amen is saying that a biology teacher was actually mocking Christians.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi