Need help with an Evolution debate?

I can think of no reasons whatsoever. The only help I can be is to tell you that your first argument is going to get shot down in flames by anyone who knows what a theory is. It's not a guess. A theory is an explanation of evidence and, at the very least, has to be getting close to scientific fact. Evolution is possibly the most heavily supported theory of all time, and is easily scientific fact by any even remotely reasonable standards.

Your second argument is correct (it does indeed contradict Creationism), but you'll probably run into trouble when someone asks "So what?". I'm not entirely sure what you could say to that. The Catholic Church's official stance is that evolution happened, so it contradicting Creationism should have no relevance even to a Catholic school. Similarly, the argument that it could offend is easily responded to. The entire point of school is to educate people. If we weren't going to tell people about things they don't know because the fact they don't know already it might offend them, we wouldn't be able to teach anything.

I'm sorry I can't be of any more help, but there's simply not a lot to say. There's no good reason not to teach it.

Catholic schools do teach evolution, from what I understand. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. (Doesn't mean specific schools don't have a problem with it, though.)

1. Wrong. Evolution is both a scientific fact AND a theory. You can have both. Remember that a theory is just an explanation for *why* we observe a set of facts. Although the theory can change (as evolution has), that does not mean the facts change, too. For instance, there is the fact of gravity and then the theory physicists use to explain it. A person can disbelieve in gravity all they want, but they can't ignore it if they jump out of an airplane.

2. Evolution may go against a literal interpretation of creationism, but so do other scientific phenomena that nobody is debating. We have far less evidence for the theory of gravity than we do for evolution, yet creationists aren't attacking gravity. Creationists aren't attacking the heliocentric model of the solar system, yet there are parts of the Bible which clearly violate that understanding. (For instance, Genesis counts "days" before the sun is even made, and Daniel witnesses the sun being frozen in the sky.)

You'd probably be better off looking into molecular biologists who have criticized evolution on the molecular level. Michael Behe would be a good start. (He's the guy who came up with the mouse-trap argument.)

>>>>> my group and i have put in a lot of thought into it and have come up with 2 points

You need to think some more. You need to learn what science means. You need to learn the scientific method. You need to learn the meaning of the words you are using.

>>>>>1. Evolution is a Theory and is not yet scientific fact

This seems to fall into the category of the "It's just a theory" non-argument. This claim demonstrates that the person using it is scientifically illiterate. The meaning of theory in science is in no way demeaning. It is the opposite. The term theory is given to a hypothesis that has withstood multiple experimental tests and has emerged as the best model that explains a natural phenomenon.

Evolution is the name given to a natural phenomenon. It means change in allele frequency in a population over time. This is observed. This is measured. This is predictable using the theory that best explains how and why allele frequencies change--The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

>>>>>2. Evolution goes against the teachings of creationism

So how is that a problem? Creationism is a primitive mono-theistic religion concocted by stoneage tribes who knew nothing about how the universe worked. Instead, the surprising thing would be if anything agreed between the two.

<<1. Evolution is a Theory and is not yet scientific fact>>

Bad. Scientifically illiterate. Theories are explanations, and never become facts. ("Scientific fact" is drivel.) No theory ever becomes a fact.

Part of the evidence for evolutionary theory is the fact that evolution, ie. descent with modification across the generations as acted upon by natural selection, is observed to happen on a daily basis in laboratories around the world.

You first point is pointless.

<<2. Evolution goes against the teachings of creationism>

Bad. What is "creationism" supposed to be? There is, for example, no contradiction between the usual Catholic view of a God creating the universe, Earth, life and so on and evolutionary theory. This is because evolutionary theory merely accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, not for the creation (or non-creation) of the universe, the Earth or, indeed, life itself.

Evolution, as stated above, is an observed fact.

Update

<<I would make the third point about how evolution does not do an adequate job of explaining abiogenesis, or how organisms arose from inorganic matter.>>

I certainly wouldn't! Evolutionary theory isn't in the least concerned with the origins (if any) of life. It doesn't do an "adequate job" because it doesn't attempt to offer any explanation for that whatsoever. It merely accounts for the diversity of lifeforms. Abiogenesis or supernatural gensis or some other genesis is irrelevant to the subject at hand; ie. descent with modification across the generations as acted upon by natural selection.

Alright, since you find yourself defending an indefensible position, why not have a good time with it? Go trolling. That way you can keep your first two points, since they’re clearly either wrong (point 1) or not germane (who cares whether they go against the teachings of Creationism? You’re in a Catholic school, not a Creationist school.)

As for a third point, how about because it involves evidence from the natural world that conflicts with your personal interpretation of the Bible, and so must be wrong? Or you could claim God told you it was wrong last Thursday during math class. Or you could explain that since God created each and every person, and since that means that nobody could ever have developed into what he is over a long period of time by numerous small changes starting from a single-celled organism, then therefore no species did either. Or you could point out that evolution is impossible based on the second law of thermodynamics UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy; and if there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. (http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&... ). Or you could note the commonly accepted scientific fact that complexity and order can not develop from chaos without the intervention of intelligent planning; and then show everyone a picture of the snowflake fairies to bring home your point. Or you could note that the Bible says God created stars on the fourth day and humans and certain other animals on the 6th day, and since we never see evidence of stars forming by natural processes (particularly if we don’t look at pictures like these: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/09121... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/07100... ) then we can assume that species don’t form by natural processes either.

Why truly, the possibilities are almost endless!

There are matters that every body must hold in brain at the struggle among technology and religon. First of all, those are each approaches to discovering a fact. Because the approaches are so specific, they have a tendency to struggle every different. Everyone must hold in brain, the entire,fact factor. How as a rule does anyone achieve this truly critical study into what any individual tells them, whether or not or not it's verbally or some thing you learn? Humans have a tendency to be very trusting, and beleive the whole lot they learn or listen. Read the bible, learn a few technology journals, and are available in your possess conclusions. I did. I'm an atheist, by way of and by way of, and despite the fact that I'm only a meesly undergrad, I am ready to commit my whole existence to technology. And so far as evolution is going, to whoever mentioned folks are not evolving, learn a few medical journals. Think approximately the truth that our pinkys are shrinking, and blonde hair is slowly fading out, among many different matters. It's considering liveing the best way we do, few want the ones matters anymore. I'm certain theres plenty of alternative examples however the ones are those I'm so much familar.

All arguments against evolution ultimately fail. So good luck with that!

"Evolution is a Theory and is not yet scientific fact"

Wrong. learn what a scientific theory is

"Evolution goes against the teachings of creationism"

Sure, but does that have anything to do with the TRUTH?

The heliocentric model of the solar system goes against the geocentric model of the solar system. Does that mean the heliocentric model is false?

If this is for a science class, then end the debate by pointing at

Kitzmiller et al v Dover Area School District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_A...

Tell your parents, PTA, and everyone else who will listen that your teacher is not qualified to be teaching science, since he is wasting classroom time debating a non-issue. When you were learning about gravitation did you debate whether it should be taught in Catholic high schools?

You should not be penalized for being put on the losing end of a debate.

If your teacher wants to be a master debater he should not be doing it in the classroom.

I would make the third point about how evolution does not do an adequate job of explaining abiogenesis, or how organisms arose from inorganic matter.

Or, do some research on the concept of irreducible complexity. It is the only other credible criticism of evolution I've encountered. It basically says that some features of life cannot be explained by evolution.

I believe that both Evolution and Creation are theories and both should be taught, including the shortcomings of each, and discussed. There are many theories, such as quantum theory, that are taught so that does not disqualify them.

But that won't help you in your debate. Try this website, it should give you some ideas.

http://creation.com/