Topic: Alternatives to evolution should not be taught in school.
Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about why Alternatives to Evolution should not be taught in school.
Thesis Statement: Creation should not be taught in Americas public schools due to it being unconstitutional, being impractical, and would counter the purpose of schools.
Attention Material: The battle over whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools has raged on for over half a centaury. "Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President of the United States of America, stated 'Leave religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate'" (Deloria, p. 25). To this quotation I agree, because it would not be right to lead students to believe that they must follow a certain religion, or to teach religious beliefs as facts.
Credibility Material: All of the information I used for this debate was found doing intensive research.
Thesis Statement: Creation should not be taught in Americas public schools due to it being unconstitutional, being impractical, and would counter the purpose of schools. Preview: The audience will learn about why alternatives to evolution should not be taught in school.
Transition to I: There are several reasons why creation should not be taught in schools one of them being that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
I. It would be a complete violation of the constitution to allow the teaching of religious beliefs in public schools.
A. There have been many court cases that uphold the unconstitutionality of teaching creationism in public schools.
1. In McClean v. Arkansas (1981) "a federal judge found that Arkansas' balanced treatment law mandating equal treatment of creation with evolution was unconstitutional"(Ruse, p. 2).
2. Also, in...