Question:
Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.

This legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions?

By extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this. [1]

[1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.

This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being.

This legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance.

As for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths [1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation.

[1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

Creationism makes empirical claims, such as that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The use of scientific arguments against these claims shows that Creationism is in fact falsifiable. [1]

Scientific Creationism is a relatively new discipline which only really started in the 20th century. It has not had the same time or resources put into developing it as has evolutionary science, because of broader cultural prejudices and philosophical assumptions against it.

Recent Creationist research has focused not on reacting to evolutionary theory, but building its own research and models working from Biblical presuppositions. Many earlier Creationist theories, models and arguments have been modified or abandoned, showing that Creationism is able to adapt in light of new research. [2]

Creationism is actually more open-minded than evolutionary theory, because evolutionary scientists exclude the possibility of the supernatural on principle, not because of lack of evidence.

[1] Larry Laudan, ‘Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 41, Autumn, 1982 http://www.jstor.org/openurl?volume=7&date=1982&spage=16&issn=01622439&issue=41 , Accessed 31/5/2011

[2] Paul Garner, ‘The New Creationism’, Evangelicals Now, June 2009, http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4660-The-new-creationism.htm Accessed 2/6/2011

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]

The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]

[1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html Accessed 3/6/2011

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.

Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Causes divisions in society.

One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.

Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.

This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.

[1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.

This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.

The status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

Creationism makes empirical claims, such as that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The use of scientific arguments against these claims shows that Creationism is in fact falsifiable. [1]

Scientific Creationism is a relatively new discipline which only really started in the 20th century. It has not had the same time or resources put into developing it as has evolutionary science, because of broader cultural prejudices and philosophical assumptions against it.

Recent Creationist research has focused not on reacting to evolutionary theory, but building its own research and models working from Biblical presuppositions. Many earlier Creationist theories, models and arguments have been modified or abandoned, showing that Creationism is able to adapt in light of new research. [2]

Creationism is actually more open-minded than evolutionary theory, because evolutionary scientists exclude the possibility of the supernatural on principle, not because of lack of evidence.

[1] Larry Laudan, ‘Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 41, Autumn, 1982 http://www.jstor.org/openurl?volume=7&date=1982&spage=16&issn=01622439&issue=41 , Accessed 31/5/2011

[2] Paul Garner, ‘The New Creationism’, Evangelicals Now, June 2009, http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4660-The-new-creationism.htm Accessed 2/6/2011

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]

The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]

[1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html Accessed 3/6/2011

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.

Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The Age of the Earth

Evidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth.

For example, most of the stars in the sky are thousands and millions of lightyears away, which means that light took thousands and millions of years to reach us. [1]

Similarly, there are many geographic features that took thousands or millions of years to form. For example, ice cores such as those from Vostok, Antartica, give evidence of changes in climate going back 400,000 years, [2] far older than the 6,000 or so calculated from a literal reading of Genesis.

All the evidence points this way, from archaeology, geology, physics, astronomy and more. There are many different indicators that all point to an old age of the Earth.

[1] Björn Feuerbacher, ‘Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html Accessed 1/6/2011

[2] ‘Vostok Ice Core’, National Climactic Data Centre, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html Accessed 2/6/2011

Secular scientists extrapolate the age of the earth backwards from examining current natural processes, but they assume that they have always taken place at the same speed and for the same reasons, but this is not necessarily the case.

There are a number of possible solutions to the distant starlight problem: God could have created the light in transit; the speed of light may have been much greater in the past; Einstein’s theory of general relativity indicates that time is relative, and so a few thousand years on Earth could be millions elsewhere in the universe. [1]

The volcanic eruption at Mount St Helens, Washington State in 1980 shows how catastrophic events can very quickly lay down geological formations that appear to have formed slowly. The Genesis flood would account for the rapid formation of geographical features that evolutionists interpret as old. [2]

[1] James Upton ‘Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology’, Answers Research Journal 4 (2011) www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology Accessed 31/5/2011

[2] ‘Mount St Helens in Washington State’, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/mount-st-helens Accessed 1/6/2011

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Falsifiability

Evolutionary theory is open to change and is in principle falsifiable: if enough evidence was found, scientists would change their views. Scientists make their reputations by making new discoveries, so if evolution could be disproved, someone would have done it, but it is still standing after over 150 years of research since Darwin, showing how strong it is. [1]

Although Creationism is falsifiable scientifically, with plenty of evidence to disprove it, it is non-falsifiable on its own terms. Any scientific evidence against it can be explained away by Creationists by saying ‘God did it’ – for example, by claiming dinosaur fossils were put there to test people’s faith. Science is able to change in light of new evidence, unlike Creationism, which is a matter of dogma.

Even if evolutionary theory cannot yet explain every detail, this does not give any support to Creationism. If something cannot yet be explained by science, it does not mean that God did it; it means we need to investigate further to find a better scientific explanation. Creationism discourages scientific investigation and encourages blind faith.

[1] ‘Evolution Falsifiable’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html Accessed 2/6/2011

Creationism makes empirical claims, such as that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The use of scientific arguments against these claims shows that Creationism is in fact falsifiable. [1]

Scientific Creationism is a relatively new discipline which only really started in the 20th century. It has not had the same time or resources put into developing it as has evolutionary science, because of broader cultural prejudices and philosophical assumptions against it.

Recent Creationist research has focused not on reacting to evolutionary theory, but building its own research and models working from Biblical presuppositions. Many earlier Creationist theories, models and arguments have been modified or abandoned, showing that Creationism is able to adapt in light of new research. [2]

Creationism is actually more open-minded than evolutionary theory, because evolutionary scientists exclude the possibility of the supernatural on principle, not because of lack of evidence.

[1] Larry Laudan, ‘Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 41, Autumn, 1982 http://www.jstor.org/openurl?volume=7&date=1982&spage=16&issn=01622439&issue=41 , Accessed 31/5/2011

[2] Paul Garner, ‘The New Creationism’, Evangelicals Now, June 2009, http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4660-The-new-creationism.htm Accessed 2/6/2011

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The fossil evidence

Fossils allow us a glimpse into the development of life on Earth. Fossils show a development from earlier, less complex forms of life, through to newer, more complex forms of life, with characteristics developed from earlier organisms. This progression is strong evidence for evolution. Since fossilization is a rare event, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but all the available evidence is consistent with, and fully explained by, evolution. [1]

There are many examples of transitional fossils, including of our own ancestors, showing how humans evolved from apelike creatures. For example, scientists discovered the skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed “Ardi”. Ardi is the oldest fossil of a human ancestor, and the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes. Ardi shows a mixture of advanced characteristics and primitive traits. [2]

If fossils had been laid down by a catastrophe such as the Genesis flood, as Creationists argue, then complex and simple lifeforms should be mixed together, with no clear order or progression. But the fossil record shows a clear progression in complexity.

[1] Austin Cline, Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution, http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm Accessed 1/6/2011

[2] Jamie Shrieve, ‘Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found’, National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html , Accessed 1/6/2011

There is an absence of transitional fossils. The evidence for ‘missing links’ between different species is itself missing. Fossils are jumbled up, rather than ordered from simple to complex. [1]

Supposed transitional species will often be wildly extrapolated from small fragments to fit with evolutionary theory. Supposed human ancestors are either extinct apes, actual human beings, or accidental mix-ups of human and ape bones. There are no clear anatomical markers separating homo erectus and homo sapiens, for example. [2]

The fossil record is better explained by a global catastrophic flood, as described in the story of Noah in Genesis. The massive geological upheaval which would take place in such an event would leave the remains of millions of dead animals and plants in layers across the world, which is exactly what we find. [3]

[1] John D Morris, ‘What’s a missing link?’, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2709 Accessed 1/6/2011

[2] ‘People were always people!’ Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/people.asp Accessed 1/6/2011

[3] Andrew A. Snelling, ‘Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood’, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Naturalistic assumptions

Evolutionary science rules out the possibility of God on principle, rather than on the basis of evidence. On an unbiased assessment, without the presupposition of naturalism, Creationism offers a better interpretation of the evidence. But most scientists refuse to allow the possibility of God creating the world, blinding them to the facts.

Secular science is committed to only looking for natural explanations (methodological naturalism), but this only makes sense if you already know that nothing supernatural exists (ontological naturalism). If God intervenes in the natural world, then this can be investigated empirically and scientifically.

Evolutionists assume that “the present is the key to the past”, otherwise known as uniformitarianism. They are attempting to reconstruct the past after the event from fragmentary evidence. But God was there in the beginning and so can tell us what actually happened. We should believe God’s revelation, not human speculation. [1]

[1] Jason Lisle, ‘Is the Present the Key to the Past?’, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/04/feedback-key-to-the-past Accessed 1/6/2011

Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.

Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith.

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Evolution undermines meaning and morality

Evolution gives no basis for morality or human dignity. If we evolved from animals rather than being uniquely created in the image of God, then humanity should be accorded no more status than an animal, plant or amoeba. Acceptance of evolution leads to Social Darwinism and eugenics.

If we are only the product of time plus chance plus impersonal forces, there is no objective standard of right and wrong, only what benefits the survival of our genes or not. For example, rape may have an adaptive benefit in enabling the passing on of genes of the rapist. An evolutionary worldview has no rational basis for condemning such an action. [1]

[1] Frank Turek, ‘Evolution Cannot Explain Morality’, CrossExamined.Org, http://crossexamined.org/articles-detail.asp?ID=76&Title=Evolution%20Cannot%20Explain%20Morality Accessed 3/6/2011

Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Science simply describes what is, not what ought to be. Social Darwinism and eugenics are misapplications of science. We have evolved the capacity for higher reasoning, and so we can develop ethical and moral systems to suit us, rather than following the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. [1]

Social studies indicate that secularised societies in which evolutionary science is widely accepted enjoy lower rates of societal dysfunction, whereas the USA, which is much more religious and anti-evolution, has worse social health. [2]

Morality may have an evolutionary basis. People who look after their relatives, those who share many of their genes, are maximising the likelihood those genes will be passed on. Altruism benefits the survival of the group as a whole.

[1] ‘Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Gregory S. Paul, ‘Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies’, Journal of Religion and Society (Volume 7, 2005) http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf Accessed 31/5/2011

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The Bible says God created the world

The Bible is God’s Word, inspired and infallible, and it reveals that the world was created by him in 6 days within recent history (Genesis 1-2). God says it, so we should accept what he reveals as truth. [1]

If the Bible is true at all, it cannot just be ‘symbolically’ true about spiritual matters, but must be true in matters of fact and science as well. You cannot divide meaning from facts. Theologically, the Bible teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), which contradicts evolution because death is necessary for natural selection. [2]

There is no neutral interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists interpret the scientific evidence in light of the presupposition that there is no God, while Creationists interpret it on the presupposition there is a God. Christians who accept evolution have bought into secular assumptions that are inconsistent with their faith and what the Bible teaches.

[1] Don Landis, ‘“And God Said”’, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/biblical-authority-god-said Accessed 31/5/11

[2] Fred Van Dyke, ‘Theological Problems of Theistic Evolution’, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86VanDyke.html Accessed 1/6/2011

Most scientists are not Christians and do not accept the Bible as God’s word: in 1996, only 40% of US scientists believed in God. [1]

Many Christians interpret the Creation account symbolically and have done so since long before Darwin. For example, in the 5th century, the theologian Augustine argued that the account in Genesis was not a literal, chronological account. [2] Even if Genesis was inspired by God, it could not have been intended to be a literal, scientific account, because it would have made no sense to the people of the time. It must be interpreted according to its original genre and purpose. [3]

When the Bible says death entered the world through Adam, it could refer exclusively to humans rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. Alternatively, it may refer to spiritual death, which is separation from God, rather than physical death, the separation of soul from body. [4]

Science proceeds by reason, evidence and observation, not by arguments from religious authority. If science contradicts the Bible, we should accept the findings of science, which is based on reason and evidence, rather than the Bible, which is based on faith.

[1] Edward J. Larson, Larry Witham, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature, 23rd July 1998, p. 313 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf , accessed 24/5/11.

[2] Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species’, Christianity Today, May 2009, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[3] Ernest Lucas, Science and the Bible: Are they Incompatible? The Creation story as a test case, http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/lucas/lecture.html Accessed 31/5/11

[4] ‘Was there Death before the Fall?’, Biologos Forum, http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall/ Accessed 2/6/2011

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Chance cannot produce complexity

Evolution depends on chance mutations in genes producing changes that make it more complex and introduce survival benefits. Mutations do not increase the complexity of organisms, but damages them: for example, cancer. Mutants might gain new powers in comic books, but not in real life. [1]

Mutations may have beneficial side-effects, but do not add new information. For example, sickle-cell anemia increases resistance to malaria. [2] However, it does this because the normal functioning of the blood cells is impaired, not by evolving into something more complex, which is necessary for evolution to take place.

Many biological systems are irreducibly complex: you need all the parts to work, or they will not work at all, like a mousetrap. They cannot have arisen by step-by-step changes.

[1] Daniel W. McShea, ‘Complexity and Evolution: What Everyone Knows’, Biology and Philosophy, 6: 303-324, 1991. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k87536105j01g806/ Accessed 1/6/2011

[2] Michael Aidoo et al., ‘Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality’, Lancet 2002; 359: 1311-12 http://www.biomed.emory.edu/PROGRAM_SITES/PBEE/pdf/Udhayakumar6.pdf Accessed 3/6/2011

Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]

The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]

[1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html Accessed 3/6/2011

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.

There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.

Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.

The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.

The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.

In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]

The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.

This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]

[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others

Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example [i] .

We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life.

[i] Sue Reid. "Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise." Daily Mail , 17 August 2012.

The case given is quite different. The parents directly acted to cause harm to their child, inflicting a series of violent beatings over a sustained period. Such a course of action is already illegal and they were rightly convicted and punished. In this instance, a course of action is being avoided with the best interest of the child uppermost in the minds of the parents.

The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism.

The procedural justice of free exchange is important, but is presumes that humans are born with equal talents and in equally enabling environments. This is obviously not true: people can be born to parents with high or low socio-economic status and the talents they are born with, like IQ, are normally distributed.

Suppose you’re born with high talents but to parents with a low socio-economic status. That means your parents do not have enough income to spend on your education: their money is all spent on the basic necessities like food and housing. Since you don’t get the education you need to further develop your talents, you will also likely remain stuck in the same socio-economic class, as will your children, and their children. At the same time, the children of rich parents get more opportunities: even when they’re moderately talented, their parents can invest in maximally developing their talents or even give them a large endowment to live from.

An example of this lack of ‘social mobility’ is the United States, where parental income is an important predictor of a child’s future (Upper Bound, 2010). This is not just a gross and unfair inequality: it is also an infringement upon the liberty of the individual, who, in a free market, is effectively and structurally constrained to develop his or her own talents.

There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.

First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments).

Second, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.

Corbyn is not tied to the past and his agenda is not going to simply be a rehash of Michael Foot’s manifesto in 1983. The policies Corbyn is advocating now would not have been considered particularly left wing in 1983 and most are not particularly radical even now. Policies like rent controls, peoples’ QE, and renationalising the railways may be statist but are potentially popular solutions to issues that concern voters; the cost of housing, that QE benefited the banks and no one else, and that commuting is cramped and costly.

It’s not true that all markets naturally lead to a concentration of power. Whenever concentration of market power, even leading up to a monopoly, does happen, this is caused by the underlying cost structure of the industry, whereby a company experiences increasing returns to scale and relatively high fixed costs. This means it is most efficient for the first entrant in a market to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. An example of such a natural monopoly used to be the markets for utilities: when the distributing networks for water or energy weren’t built yet, the first company to expand would gain a natural monopoly.

Given that a natural monopoly is a consequence of the underlying cost structure of the industry, there is not much one can do to change it. Basically, one can choose between a private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government monopoly (Capitalism and Freedom, 2002). Of these, the private monopoly is best. A government monopoly would not just be a monopoly, but would also have the force of law to back it – the result would be the most direct form of regulatory capture, where the business interest takes over the public interest of the government agency.

It is false that there is a lack of choice now. There are plenty of other parties that voters could vote for if they believe the main two parties do not provide them with the choice they want. On the right there is UKIP and on the left the Greens and also other much smaller more extreme parties standing pain a few constituencies. If there were sufficient numbers who want to vote for a more left wing agenda then the Greens would be doing much better than they are – they currently only have one seat.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

The free market doesn’t invest in fundamental research this is research to understand fundamental principles as it does not have a commercial purpose and may never result in a commercial product, ultimately, fundamental research is the key enabler of innovation. Private companies don’t invest in fundamental research, because by its nature it is open ended and very expensive and as a result may never pay back the investment.

One example is the invention of the laser: the foundations were laid by theoretical physicists like Albert Einstein. This theoretical work wasn’t done with the purpose to invent something like a laser, but to probe deeper into the fundamentals of reality. The first actual existing lasers emerged only 40 years later, and only then did corporations begin to be interested. More examples are Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a military research lab, and CERN, the operator of the world’s largest particle accelerator. Between them, they serendipitously invented the key technologies of the internet, something that no one could have foreseen.

Governments have both the resources and the patience to invest in open-ended and long-term projects like this, whereas for corporations, this would have been too risky to be a sensible business decision.

As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot.

Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust".

Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting.

If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy.

Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The status of the child

The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked.

In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening. We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also apply here.

We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.

The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism.

The procedural justice of free exchange is important, but is presumes that humans are born with equal talents and in equally enabling environments. This is obviously not true: people can be born to parents with high or low socio-economic status and the talents they are born with, like IQ, are normally distributed.

Suppose you’re born with high talents but to parents with a low socio-economic status. That means your parents do not have enough income to spend on your education: their money is all spent on the basic necessities like food and housing. Since you don’t get the education you need to further develop your talents, you will also likely remain stuck in the same socio-economic class, as will your children, and their children. At the same time, the children of rich parents get more opportunities: even when they’re moderately talented, their parents can invest in maximally developing their talents or even give them a large endowment to live from.

An example of this lack of ‘social mobility’ is the United States, where parental income is an important predictor of a child’s future (Upper Bound, 2010). This is not just a gross and unfair inequality: it is also an infringement upon the liberty of the individual, who, in a free market, is effectively and structurally constrained to develop his or her own talents.

There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.

First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments).

Second, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.

Corbyn is not tied to the past and his agenda is not going to simply be a rehash of Michael Foot’s manifesto in 1983. The policies Corbyn is advocating now would not have been considered particularly left wing in 1983 and most are not particularly radical even now. Policies like rent controls, peoples’ QE, and renationalising the railways may be statist but are potentially popular solutions to issues that concern voters; the cost of housing, that QE benefited the banks and no one else, and that commuting is cramped and costly.

It’s not true that all markets naturally lead to a concentration of power. Whenever concentration of market power, even leading up to a monopoly, does happen, this is caused by the underlying cost structure of the industry, whereby a company experiences increasing returns to scale and relatively high fixed costs. This means it is most efficient for the first entrant in a market to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. An example of such a natural monopoly used to be the markets for utilities: when the distributing networks for water or energy weren’t built yet, the first company to expand would gain a natural monopoly.

Given that a natural monopoly is a consequence of the underlying cost structure of the industry, there is not much one can do to change it. Basically, one can choose between a private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government monopoly (Capitalism and Freedom, 2002). Of these, the private monopoly is best. A government monopoly would not just be a monopoly, but would also have the force of law to back it – the result would be the most direct form of regulatory capture, where the business interest takes over the public interest of the government agency.

It is false that there is a lack of choice now. There are plenty of other parties that voters could vote for if they believe the main two parties do not provide them with the choice they want. On the right there is UKIP and on the left the Greens and also other much smaller more extreme parties standing pain a few constituencies. If there were sufficient numbers who want to vote for a more left wing agenda then the Greens would be doing much better than they are – they currently only have one seat.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

The free market doesn’t invest in fundamental research this is research to understand fundamental principles as it does not have a commercial purpose and may never result in a commercial product, ultimately, fundamental research is the key enabler of innovation. Private companies don’t invest in fundamental research, because by its nature it is open ended and very expensive and as a result may never pay back the investment.

One example is the invention of the laser: the foundations were laid by theoretical physicists like Albert Einstein. This theoretical work wasn’t done with the purpose to invent something like a laser, but to probe deeper into the fundamentals of reality. The first actual existing lasers emerged only 40 years later, and only then did corporations begin to be interested. More examples are Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a military research lab, and CERN, the operator of the world’s largest particle accelerator. Between them, they serendipitously invented the key technologies of the internet, something that no one could have foreseen.

Governments have both the resources and the patience to invest in open-ended and long-term projects like this, whereas for corporations, this would have been too risky to be a sensible business decision.

As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot.

Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust".

Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting.

If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy.

Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim