Gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana are two social and political issues that Louisiana is behind on. But it doesn’t stop there. Louisiana also lags behind on the debate about evolution or creationism being taught in schools.
In 2008, we further proved our ignorance as a state by passing the Louisiana Science Education Act. This bill makes it easier for teachers in the state to use textbooks that teach theories of creationism along with evolution.
Baton Rouge Magnet High School alumnus Zack Kopplin has become partially famous from his vehement and outspoken opposition to the LSEA bill. He firmly believes that creationism and “intelligent design” theories have no place in the classroom.
For years, he’s advocated for the bill to be repealed based on the idea that only science and scientific theories should be taught in science classes. Concepts based on faith and biblical text hold no weight.
I completely agree.
The bill states that it intends “to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
What open and objective discussion does there need to be? Evolution may be considered a theory, but anyone who’s taken a high school-level science class should have been taught why things are called theories versus being called scientific law or fact.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. 
A relevant quote from the book “The Top 10 Myths About Evolution” by Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan says “…calling evolution ‘just a theory’ involves a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Evolution is a fact, and the three main processes that make up evolution — replication, variation and selection — are observable and undeniable.”
A few basic Google searches and reading some scientific articles led me to the conclusion that although evolution is called a theory, it is indeed fact, proven after much testing and scientific analysis. The word “theory” can’t be held at the same weight as it is in layman’s terms if it’s being used in a scientific way.
Moving on from that, let’s focus on my opponent’s argument, the teaching of “intelligent design” in a college setting.
“Intelligent design,” or ID, is the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
The main difference between ID and creationism is that creationism uses the Bible for backing and states that the Christian god was the creator of the universe. ID detaches from direct religious roots. It believes there are too many holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution and these holes scientifically prove the presence of “intelligent design” in nature.
ID doesn’t recognize the possibility of different species evolving from one another. Along with this, its backers don’t believe there’s a chance that complex systems of organisms could have resulted from natural selection.
The overall goal of “intelligent design” is to disprove Darwinism as the mainstream idea behind evolution and to prove there’s design in nature.
Although ID believers consider it a scientific theory, the scientific community does not. Unlike with the theory of evolution, ID hasn’t been proven through tests, observations and experimentation. It gets its footing from the idea that Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed and it tries to go from there.
Unless there’s some hidden scientific theory that hasn’t been released yet pertaining to the creation of the universe, it’s safe to say evolution is without a doubt our best bet.
ID and creationism have no place in public school science classes, whether at the elementary, secondary or college level.
It’s 2013 and if I didn’t live in the backwards state of Louisiana, I wouldn’t even think this would be an issue up for debate.
Let’s put this argument to rest.