Round 2. Jamuhn V ShadowXIX: Creation/Evolution

Opening statement

I would like to wish Jamuhn good luck, and I would like to thank Kano for giving me the chance to partake in this debate.

Schools SHOULD NOT be allowed to teach Creationism alongside Evolution as part of their science curriculum

First I think we should look at some common definitions of Creationism and Evolution

Creationism

''Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.''-The American Heritage

''The literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis.''-WordNet

Creationism is a subject of faith and belief, there is no observable or scientific facts to back this up so it is not science.

Evolution

The theory of evolution by contrast is based on scientific observations and of scientific facts.

"Evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

This Definitions is not entirely correct, Evolution is simply a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

By that definition, evolution is an indisputable and observable fact.

Creationism VS Evolution

Creationism is a issue of faith while Evolution is a issue of science. Creationism should never be taught in the context of science as Evolution is. Science is a search for knowledge. Invoking miracles and God to explain how we get from this to that, adds nothing to human knowledge.

Creationism should be keep in church and theology classes it has no place in science. Science is a search for knowledge, Philosophy and theology are a search for *truth*

Indeed some great minds Einstein, Newton and Hawking have believed in a Creator but this was a subject of faith for these men. Newton did not attribute the law of gravity to the power of God. Einstein once said " God does not play dice with the universe " This same thought turned out to be wrong according to quantum mechanics and Hawking, the Universe and God if there is one seem to indeed play dice. Sometimes the dice are even thrown where nobody can see them.

References

dictionary.reference.com...

www.edwardtbabinski.us...

www.m-w.com...

Thanks ShadowXIX.

I don't mean to spend much of this debate arguing semantics, but I believe some of Shadow's definitions to be misleading.
Just as Shadow says his definition of evolution is not entirely correct, neither is that of Creation Science. To say Creationsim deals strictly with the Bible excludes all the other spiritual and religious systems that also specify a creation aspect to some extent. Intelligent Design scientists as well ascribe the design of nature and the current state of species to a higher power with purpose. With a broad term like creationism, we simply cannot deduce that this word can only apply to the Bible when we see so many others giving credence to this term.

As well, knowledge and truth are synonymous. What use is knowledge if the knowledge we possess is false? Surely the aim of science is not to gain false knowledge, but to cognize the truth.

The inadequacies of evolutionary theory need to be questioned in the classroom
The major premise of Neo-Evolutionary theory is that the mechanism works through random mutation and that the success of these mutations depends upon natural selection. The attribution of randomness to mutation is that spontaneity occurs with no particular order. Katherine Anne Porter, a famous essayist, novelist, and journalist writes: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves."[1] Miracles, like randomness, are events that are inexplicable as to why they occur. Evolutionary theory itself would like to attribute miracles to the world we see today.

Another point I would like to make is that evolution is far from complete as a theory. To date, there are many missing links to give full support to the evolutionary theory. To accept evolution as an unquestionable truth in the classroom would be folly. Only creation science as a complement can spur intelligent discussion in the classroom and inspire those who wish to pursue further.

Dr. Lyll Watson, Science Digest: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"[2]

Another question, "How does evolution explain the emergence and development of sexual reproduction given that both male and female physiology would have to mutate simultaneously?"[2]

It is unjust to teach evolution exclusively
In a Gallup Poll of 2001, people were surveyed about how the human population developed. The results were that an overwhelming 82% of people believed that God played a part in the development of the human species compared with 12% supporting no God-guided process.[4] In a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, 78% of the people wanted intelligent design to be taught in the classroom.[5] The point is that we cannot allow a minority of people to control what our children are taught in the classroom. There are many scientists, students, and parents that advocate this theory should be taught in the classroom.

What does Creation Science support and how would it be taught with evolutionary theory?
Scientific Creationism supports the notion of microevolution. Microevolution can be defined as, "Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."[3] Scientific creationists support the theory that the originally created species contained all the genetic information pertinent to creating the subspecies. A hallmark of evolution is macroevolution, which is the large-scale evolving of species from single cells to what we see today. Macroevolution has yet to be proved in any experiment nor have we found any conclusive evidence in earth's history.

Creation Science also entails intelligent design, which contains a myriad of evidence in support of the theory that a higher power designed the species of the earth. Such evidence includes apparent design in that we are able to understand something at all in this universe, which Einstein attributes to a higher power as well. Another piece of evidence is that the irreducible complexity of macroevolution is able to be cognized through a simpler solution. The biological information we possess and the similarities between biological system and human-made systems both give credence to the scientific theory of intelligent design, or creation science.[4]

In the classroom, students would learn these points of creation science. No mention would be made on what God, if any, that a design could be attributed to. The point would be teach both these theories objectively and not allow a belief in religion nor a belief in randomness/miracles to influence how it is taught. Only in this way, can classrooms be effectively used to spur debate, critical analysis, and inspire students to in their quest for knowledge.

References
1. Katherine Anne Porter Quote
2. www.icr.org...
3. Microevolution Definition
4. Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolutionary Theory
5. Polls on teaching exclusively Evolution in the Classroom

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

Unlike creationism, intelligent design (ID) is based on science, not sacred texts. Intelligent design theory is an effort to detect whether the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is a genuine design of intelligence.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago during a six day span. Adam and Eve the Great world Flood and the like. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not focus on a source of the intelligence. It could for all purposes be intelligence of a alien life form in ID. People behind ID want nothing to do with Creationism for good reasons.

Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. Many people in the ID movement believe in evolution. But They will fill in the gaps or things they do not yet understand in the theory with a Intelligent designer.

How are kids ever going to learn when we get to a hole in a theory and instead of looking for a answer we just sign that part off to God or another Intelligent Designer. People of Ancient Greece thought lighting came from the king of gods Zeus. Im sure if I took a Gallup Poll back then 90+ percent of people would want that taught as science in schools.

But im not here to argue the case against Intelligent Design and there are things wrong with that. But rather to argue the case of why Creationism a religous view should not be taught in science class.


Court Rulings on "Creation Science"

The courts have ruled that "Creation Science" is a religious view. Because public schools must be religiously neutral under the U.S. Constitution, the courts have held that it is unconstitutional to present creation science as legitimate science.

Mclean v. Arkansas Board of Education
District court declared that creation science does not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term

Edwards v. Aguillard
The Supreme Court has held that it is illegal to require that creation science be taught when evolution is taught.

Peloza v. San Juan Capistrano school District
Webster v. New Lennox School District
District courts have decided that individual teachers cannot advocate creation science on their own.

Time and time again Creationism has been determined to be a religious view not a science.

But lets not get the people that want Creationism taught in school confused. These are not people that follow the religons of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, Confucianism, Sikhism. These people for the most part follow Christianity. Buddhism does not even have a Creator God. So buy teaching about a Creator God as science would be saying Buddhism is wrong.


References

www.discovery.org... C&command=view&id=1329


www.stephenjaygould.org...

www.comparative-religion.com...

Creationism is NOT a subjective term. Many religions ascribe themselves to creationism, but Creationism in the true sense of the word does not ascribe itself to them. Religious creationism should be allowed to be taught in private schools though.

-create from Latin creatus, to make, produce
-create, "to cause to exist, bring into being"[1]

-ism, any cognitive content held as true by an authoritarian group[2]

Creationism - In the context of life biology, it is the cognitive element that species were caused to exist. The authoritarian group being the amalgamation of objective creationists including Intelligent Designers.

Evolution differs in that its supporters believe in random mutations, rather than mutations occuring for a specified reason. Evolution would rather ascribe the current state of our species to something unknown rather than finding the real mechanism at work.

Mclean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Edwards v. Aguillard
Peloza v. San Juan Capistrano school District
Webster v. New Lennox School District
The court ruled that RELIGIOUS Creationism should not be taught in PUBLIC schools. The rulings made no mention of objective creationism nor PRIVATE schools.

More reasons why Intelligent Design is Creationism
From the Intelligent Design Network :

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious [including anti-religious] assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

Intelligent Design is a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed. ID claims that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena.

[3]

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory attempting to ascribe a cause to the current state of our species in addition to natural selection, which pretty much everyone supports. Intelligent Designers only wish to distance themselves from SUBJECTIVE creationists, otherwise they are one and the same.

Public Schools support objective creationism

Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad base curriculum; therefore, the Cobb School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the
species.

The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion.

[4]

Ohio State Board of Education DOES NOT: "Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions."[4]

The New Mexico State Department of Education recognized as well that evolution is not a fact and should be critically analyzed...objectively.[4]

Evolution is, in fact, subjective and anti-religous (not neutral). Evolutionists would like to maintain that their theory is a fact rather than what it actually is, a theory, one that only relies on our current knowledge and doesn't advocate advancement in theory.

The fact that fossil records are open to all kinds of interpretations, raises doubt on the reliability of even the whole science of paleoanthropology which is mostly under disposition of the evolutionists. Pilbeam described how subjective the evolutionists were while interpreting the fossils and how they held certain prejudices and expectations:

In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data� I am more somber than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us."

Though, I do not want to debate that evolutionary theory should not be taught in schools, it should be taught alongside creationism, objective creationism, intelligent creationism, or however else we should label the term to arrive at its literal meaning. For too long has evolution been taught as a fact and stifled criticism. Evolution asks that the student accepts that we will never know the specific mechanisms behind our own evolution. Creationism, in conjunction with Evolution, is the only option for science. In this way only, can we further our knowledge of the origin of the species on our earth.

Resources
1. "Create" Definition
2. "Ism" Meaning
3. Intelligent Design Network
4. Education policies in support of intelligent creationism
5. Evolution is a subjective theory

Who is behind Creationist theories?

Jamuhn mentioned a Zogby International poll which stated 78% of the people wanted intelligent design to be taught in the classroom. I found that very interesting but then I looked at religon in America. According to a 2001 ARIS Study 77% Americans can be classified as Christian coincidence? I can tell you Atheists and Buddhist are not the driving force behind this Creationist agenda. When kids ask about this Creator which they will if this is taught I wonder what Creator this 78% are talking about?

Creation-Science isn't science at all

Creation Science the happy middle of the road between Creationism and Intelligent Design. These three movements should not be confused as they have very different views.While Creation Science may not hold to a strict literal belief of the bible like Creationism it is hardly Objective or religiously neutral.

A common belief of so called Creation scientist is that Dinosaurs and Humans lived side by side. You may wonder what happened to the dinosaurs then if they didnt die 65 million years ago. Well they all died in Noah's great world flood of course. It seems Noah did not have room for the poor T-rex and his friends. They also claim that every method for dating is flawed carbon dating is wrong geological dating is wrong.This bring us to the heart and bulk of most of there claims.

Attacks on conventional science

The vast majority of work in Creationism, Creation-Science and Intelligent design is made up of attacking conventional science. The prevailing ideas of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology all come under attack. Creationist haven't managed to come up with even a single intellectually compelling, or scientifically testable evidence of a Creator. So if evolution can't explain everything it must be because we were created. Creation-science has precious few ideas of its own. How does a real scientist disprove a creator or God? They cant its a Unbeatable system and Unbeatable systems are Dogma not science.

Evolution is not unbeatable like all real science we are still learning. We dont yet have a unified theory in physics does that mean we throw out all the rest of what we know in Physics. Why not just say a Creator is the reason why everything works in Physics since we dont have all the answers. Physics can't explain what happens in the heart of a black hole. By Intelligent Design thinking if physics can't explain it as natural it must be design. That is not science

References
www.religioustolerance.org...
www.arky.org...
www.pathlights.com...

ShadowXIX stated that my poll showed 78% of the people wanting some form of intelligent creation being taught in schools when I actually stated 82% with 6% giving no opinion. I'm sure it was an honest mistake though.

Creator versus Creationism

Creator - one who creates
Creationism - In the context of life biology, it is the cognitive element that species were caused to exist.

Creationism does not make mention of person/persons to ascribe the driving force behind the creation of species. Creationism is neutral; it doesn't support any religion nor any god. Creationism, which includes the amalgamation of similar theorists that our species was created with cause, is in opposition to the unknowable theory of random mutation in evolution. We may as well call evolution metaphysical speculation.

Where does such stigma of Creationism come from?
The stigma of creationism comes from a faction of Christian fundamentalists who have taken up the word as their own. Such fundamentalists have ascribed themselves to creationism as well as creation science; these terms do not only pertain to them. This group of Christian fundamentalists have taken the meaning of the term and elaborated on them by defining their own creation story and their creation God thereby making it religious.

As a result, a backlash against the literal meaning of the word has progressed ever since. Intelligent Designers have attempted to distance themselves from this religious faction with a new phrase, but the concept of objective creationism has remained synonymous with ID ever since.

Christian fundamentalists' hijacking of the term has hindered Intelligent Designers efforts in the pursuit of knowledge by people of ignorance, people who refuse to do any research on the Creationists' academic persuit. Such people include the policy board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science who cannot recall any books/articles that they have read on the subject. One member of the board commented that she saw "unspecified" sources on the Internet. Many members of this organization, though, do support creationism/creation science/intelligent design.[1]

A clear anti-religious stigma exists with the term. Anti-religious does not equal objectivity and arises from a paranoia to the re-working of scientific theory. Remember that many creationists subscribe to some parts of the evolutionary theory; this debate is not whether to exclude evolution, but whether to supplement it with a critical anaylsis and other scientific theories such as creationism.

Who supports Creationism?
Discovery Institute:

The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg a biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.

Advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism also include mathematicians, cryptographers, and physicists.

Evidence of Creationism
First off, criticism of the evolutionary theory is support for an alternative theory, but let's looks at some specifics.
The evidence of evolution surrounds missing links, artifacts showing a link between species arrived at by the unknowable random mutation. This evidence also supports creationism, but creationism differs in that it reduces the complex random mutations of no chance to mathematical proofs of statistical probability. A list of many popular books can be found at www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org....

One such publication by William Dembski is entitled Information as a Measure of Variation and has reduced the uncertainty of evolution to probability distributions and measures. Dembski of Baylor University is highly supportive of not only intelligent design, but it's study in public schools.[1]

Paul Nelson in his publication describes evidence in favor of intelligent design to reconcile the fact that bilaterian animals cannot have a common ancestory.[3]

The Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature is by R. Totten and provides his principles through protein generation.[4]

Muller and Newman, Origination of organismal form

They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists.

[5]

Creationism is an alternative theory to evolution and does an amazing job at explaining the processes at work in evolutionary theory including macro evolution. Public school should be allowed to teach this material in schools to arrive at science's ultimate aim, pure objectivity and the pursuit of knowledge. Explicitly religious and anti-religious factions have no place in public schools.

References
1. Intelligent Design Creation facts
2. Dembski's Mathematical Proof
3. Paul Nelson, PROBLEMS WITH CHARACTERIZING THE ROTOSTOME-DEUTEROSTOME ANCESTOR
4. Totten's Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature
5. Review of Origination of organismal form: the forgotten cause in evolutionary theory

Originally posted by Jamuhn

[4] In a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, 78% of the people wanted intelligent design to be taught in the classroom

From your second post Jamuhn, your own words not mine. The 82% you gave as a result was from the Gallup poll, having to do with percent of people that thought ''God played a part in the development of the human species''. I thought the percent of people that wanted ID taught in school was more interesting.


The word Creationism has belonged to Christian fundamentalists long before any objective scientist looked at the subject. Creationism is still in the realm of fundamentalists. Real scientist try to get as far away from the word Creationism as they can. This is one reason why we get Intelligent Design.


The core of any Creator theory is not science

Well besides bashing other conventional science the core of these theories is really the Creator himself. Even if they try to look at this creator objectively they fail. They may say it doesn't have to be God but there is really not any alternative. They might say aliens might be the creators not God but if you follow this through it doesn't work. If Aliens created life on earth then who created the aliens? If you follow the line of creators back you will always run into the paradox of God. Well who created God , according to the bible nobody he always was.

There is not one piece of scientifically testable evidence in support of a God. This is the core of any Creator theory and what evidence do we have to support this? A 2000 year old book written by unknown authors, please that is hardly scientific evidence. Evolution on the other hand is full of scientifically testable evidence.

Some scientific evidence of Evolution

To really understand evolution we shold look beyond humans. Evolution is a long process and humans havent been on earth very long. Better examples exist far back in the fossil record. Transitional fossils are great evidence.

Transitional fossils

Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution.

One example of a Transitional fossil is the famous Archaeopteryx. The dinosaur to bird transition.



Birds and dinosaurs are more alike then dinosaurs and reptiles. It is now known that some dinosaurs had feathers. Archaeopteryx is one example of this but they are more. Some Raptors have been found to have feathers. Even the famous T-rex might have had feathers I knows its strange but it might be true. The similarities between birds and dinosaurs go so much deeper then simple feathers. They share much of the same bone structure.

If there was a creator he wasnt very imaginative. He ripped off the dinosaurs pretty bad when he made birds.There are many other examples of transitional fossils and much more evidence in favor of evolution. Real scientifically testable evidence. Today, many of the gaps in the fossil record have been filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and show many evolutionary transitions.


References
atheism.about.com... idence16.htm
www.stonecompany.com...

Ah yes, I see you did quote Zogby and not Gallup. As I keep saying though, objective creationism design theory does not specify a creator God, but is an alternative to the devotion towards evolution's dogma.

A poll by the American Association of Public Opinion Research found 45% of scientists believing in design theory.[1] The design movement is gaining momentum in the science field.

Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism, notes:

...one can now find a nucleus of genuine creationists on almost every college and university faculty in the country. They tend to be quiet about it or, if vocal, usually [are] persecuted for it, but they are there! Such a condition would have been unheard of 40 years ago, when I was almost alone as a creationist faculty member in the secular university world, so far as I could determine.

[2]

Design doesn't look or mention any Creator, but finds evidence that the materials and time-lapse are not self-sufficient to produce the complex organisms we see today.
The Creationist design movement extends back to ancient Greece with the observation, mathematical, and logistical works of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaximander, Plato, and Aristotle, most notably, long before Christianity became what is. This is an alternative to evolution's materialistic assertion of random mutation giving rise to complex systems. If scientists applied this theory of randomness to their respective fields, how would anything be discovered?! We do not just say that we can never know, we find the patterns and the information to detect causation!


Obviously, any Creationism should surely be taught in private/home schools
It is the right of private/home institutions to teach what they desire. Whether we agree with what they teach or not, it does'nt matter, any private school should be allowed to teach any of the various forms of creationism. Even if a private school teaches that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years in science class, that is their fundamental right.

Evolution does not use the scientific method
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and with each currently unprovable theory there must be an alternative, namely the objective, design creationism.

Evolution cannot:

• Experiment
  
• Predict macroevolution events from its theory

Honestly, evolution is philosophical speculation. But this debate is not about excluding evolution, it is about critical analysis and alternatives to macroevolution speculation with design creationism. Why should evolution be taught exclusively, when it cannot be proven? Design Creationism analyzes from points of irreducible complexity, biological information, suspicious probability fine-tuning, and confirmatory arguments, to name a few.

Darwin was never convinced of his theories, but thought they best represented his observations in the 1800s. Objective Design Creationism is about practical applications including predictability measures for macroevolution in the present and the future. These two theories are a perfect complement in science's ultimate pursuit of knowledge and should be taught together in public school science class. Creationism in any form should be allowed in private schools.

References
1. The Argument from Design
2. A Brief History of the Modern American Creation Movement
3. Too many sects of creationism and evolution to name

Closing Statement

I would like to thank Jamuhn for a great debate. I would also like to thank Kano and all ATS members who took a interest in this debate. Special thanks to Nygdan.

Creation theories where is the evidence?

I have yet to see a single example of any scientific evidence in support of any creation theory. There is a good reason for this there is no scientific evidence.Their work is made up of attacks on conventional science and not much else. Even Intelligent Design has yet to detect any evidence of design, though not from a lack of trying. Evolution on the other hand is full of scientific evidence to back up its claims.

Evolution is not Unbeatable

All the evidence we have about the natural world points to evolution and not a creator. Every day the fossil record becomes alittle bit more complete and this new evidence does not point to a creator. But even evolution is not Unbeatable or perfect.Science is a learning process which has to be able to correct its errors as new scientific evidence comes to light. Evolution can do just that as any real science can.

The fact that every aspect of evolution is not iron clad is not proof of a creator, as many creationist claim because thats really all they have to go on. It just proves that evolution is a learning process which any real science is.

The core of any creation theory which is the creator is Unbeatable. You can never test for the existance of a creator, so a creator can never be disproven. How can a Creation theory ever correct its errors? Its a Unbeatable system and Unbeatable systems are not science.

So we are left with a Unbeatable system that has no scientific evidence to back up its claims. This is not a science its a philosophy and has no place in a science class with evolution.


Conclusion

Having research many creation theories I have found them not to be objective or real science. They dont have a single piece of scientific evidence to support their claims. Even Jamuhn could not present any evidence for a Creation theory. Creationism and all its forms don't belong in science they should be left in the realms of private schools where any crazy theory can be taught.

Woops, little slow off the mark there.

Pulled the chocks on the judges, results in a day or so.

Sorry for the long delay, the winner of this debate by a margin of 7-6 is Jamuhn. A brilliant job by both competitors however and a hearty pat on the back for ShadowXIX. I think this has been the closest debate so far at ATS.

(Had to call out 2 reserves to help as the judging was so close)

When I read the topic of the debate, I wasn't very happy. Personally, I have a strong opinion in this debate and it was difficult to stay objective. I must not be in favour of the side I personally agree with, but I must also be careful not to correct for that too much by ruling against the side I agree with, simply because I agree with it. I have tried my best to stay as objective as possible and I hope that the participants of this debate will trust me on this.

Both participants debated well, with structured posts and good use of sources. However, I found the arguments lacking sometimes. Jamuhn went a bit too far in saying that evolution has never been observed. Of course, this is not true (source). ShadowXIX, however, did not really use good arguments until his last post. The unfalsifiability of creationism should have been brought up much earlier in the debate.

In the end, I have to declare Jamuhn winner of the debate. not because I agree with him, but because he made the best case and ShadowXIX could have defended his side of the debate better.

Fantastic reading! Both duelists came well armed for this fight. So far, this was the toughtest choice, but I have picked ShadowXIX, for structure, research, and pursuasiveness.

An excellent debate by both! I enjoyed reading this one. In the beginning, Jamuhn was making a great argument and pretty much had me, although he was taking the side against my own beliefs. However, the discussion shifted too much towards ID and away from creationism. In my opinion, ShadowXIX maintained a more consistent flow and focus; and therefore a better argument.

Great read, excellent debate from both participants. Whilst Jamuhn seemed to have researched alot more and certainly argued his corner well, I felt that Shadow was the better debater and proved to me that Creationism is not a science.
Jamuhn made a good point about Creationism being able to be taught in Private schools, but the title topic was "schools" so it applies to all unfortunately.

Shadow didn't seem to consider Jamuhn's point that 1) there is objective creationism and 2) both theories haven't been proven. While it is true that creationism can never be proven, it's components, as Jam highlight, such as macroevolution, are tantalizing and scientifically useful.

By recasting and giving validity to Intelligent Design, Jam allowed me to believe that both perspectives could be, and most importantly should be taught. I found Jam more convincing as a debater than Shadow. Although, kudos and cookies for Shadow; he did a great job and I hope to see him around again.

This debate certainly causes one to ponder. Both debators efforts are recognized, and each provided many good points. Thanks to both for a spirited round which I did enjoy judging.

First off, great job on this debate. Top notch work you two. My vote has to go to ShadowXIX though. The arguments seemed much more convincing and provided more evidence to support the case.

This was certainly a tough yet enjoyable debate to decide, and one I certainly would have entertained the notion that the two debators continue to present their sides. Both did an excellent job presenting their respective sides and arguments, but I found that ShadowXIX arguments to be more persuasive and founded.

A very tough and intelligent debate. Jamuhn comes out strong and defines the terms of the debate. I believe that Shadow would have done a better job is he/she had defined his/her terms as decidedly - early on. If “religous” creationism was at stake... Shadow should have made this point early on instead of turning to it when it was difficult to defend against the intelligent design argument. Also, Shadow spent entirely too much time defending evolutional theory - instead of debating the real issue, which was if both of these “theories” should be taught in public school. I think Jamuhn took the debate in his closing statement. Excellent use of sources, quotes, and research to defend his position. And, Jamuhn stayed true to the debate topic and decidedly closed his statement with why creationism should be taught in schools (both public and private). The debate goes to Jamuhn.

Whoo! This one was a doozy! I think that I'm going to have to go with Jamuhn on this one, though. I think his arguments were more solid, and I just thought it was absolutely cute when he said dogma, talking about hardcore evolutionists

One other thing that I would like to point out is that Shadow spent a little bit too much time going after the chicken bones, when there were hocks to be had in other areas. I don't think that wasting an entire post trying to illustrate that creationism and intelligent design are different (which he didn't prove explicitly) was exactly a good idea. Sorry, mate.

This was a tough one. I felt it all hinged on whether creationism, or ID, was a science or a philosophy. I feel that the best arguement was put forth by Jamuhn. He proved a stronger arguement for it as a science rather than a theological philosophy.

Best of luck to Jamuhn in round 3.