Scopes Simulation Notes and Paragraph by Cooper Cornell

Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools?

For Intelligent Design

Against Intelligent Design

Intelligent design should be in schools because everyone deserves to see all viewpoints and make their own opinion of how life is created no religious affiliation WITNESS: Michael Behe a supporter of intelligent design: he says that life is too complex to be completely explained by evolution. Michel us biology to give evidence that there must be an intelligent designer. There is an extent to which natural selection can evolve things no evidence that shows how natural selection is evolving things Michael Behe finds evidence in bacteria for intelligent design Vance: Mason Reynolds: is an advocate for intelligent design because it is an compromise for the conflicting sides evolution and god creating life intelligent design has nothing to do with religion and its somewhat up for interpretation Bryan: expert on irreducible complexity: an idea that everything must start from somewhere and it must be a working thing from the start. all the components must be there This is related to ID in that both are ideas that are challenging evolution things do not need evolution to work they already work there must be an original creation to evolve we had to start from somewhere and something created that Lewis Wolpert: W/O ID we wouldn't have the ingenuity that we have today Wolpert has a debate with a strong religious believer he believes science is the answer we advance with intelligence

religious affiliation is the theory that things cannot be explained by evolution, there is a higher power involved making this a religious matter Michael Behe’s evidence is not super solid believe in learning from observation you can't observe intelligent design you cannot witness a higher power and there is not proof of a higher power designs evolve over time Will Altinger is an expert on a textbook called OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE -it is a school level textbook that claims to give evidence about intelligent design it is written by CHRISTIANS therefore it may be religious Will is now a specialist on THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE- a clause in the constitution that says government can not establish a main religion they cannot back one religion over another freedom of religion LUCAS:expert on Pastafarianism- takes away the validity of having a deity you cannot describe it conflicts the idea of ID. It is saying that having a higher being creating things is ridiculous if you have no proof UNICORN THEORY: Same as Pastafarianism pretty much Gerardo: expert on irreducible and specified complexity: there is no evidence saying that there is a higher power that created anything there is skeletal evidence proving evolution

Paragraph of Final Decision

Who Won and Why?

After listening to the trial simulation I have come to the conclusion over the conflict of whether or not intelligent design should be taught in public schools. It is clear that the side defending intelligent design being taught in public school won because she used more logical arguments and drew from evidence that was more relevant than the other sides. The idea that intelligent design (ID) should be taught in public school so that everybody can see the different views on the creation of life and make their own opinion based on these differing views is both logical and fair. When those against ID start to question if ID has religious ideals, they make a decent point however ID never states that a high person is the creator. ID never talks about there being a god or one deity that created life, they refer to a force of nature of higher power that created the first spark of life. I think that the best argument the winning group made was when they brought up Michael Behe as a witness. Michael Behe, a biologist, says that life is too complex to be completely explained by evolution. Michael uses biology to give evidence that there must be an intelligent designer.There is an extent to which natural selection can evolve things. This concept of Behe’s is logical in that there must have been some starting point for evolution to take place from. Evolution can not serve as the only answer for life because you cannot evolve from nothing. This concept was further built on by the witness played by Bryan,an expert on irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that everything must start from somewhere and it must be a working thing from the start. All the components must be there before evolution can take place. This is very logical because how can you evolve nothing into something. You cannot evolve something into a human, you have to have something first which you can evolve into a human. The only explanation for this creation of the original something must come from ID not religion. Although the other side arguing against ID made some valid points, it is clear that the winning side was the group in support of ID. This group won because their arguments were more logical and they used more relevant evidence and witnesses.