Argument: There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.

Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.

[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.

[3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.

Candidate 1: "There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.

[1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press."
Candidate 2: "Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either."
Candidate 3: "Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant."
Candidate 4: "Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom."
Candidate 5: "Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given "equal time", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped.

[1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News."
Candidate 6: "There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator.

[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."
Candidate 7: "The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides."
Candidate 8: "Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles." [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.

[1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855."
Candidate 9: "Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot."

Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.
