The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 51544
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Before I begin, please note that I came at this subject indifferently and chose a side based on what I researched.

I also hope that this does not become a throwdown of insults. If it does, I will forfeit only because I have no interest in that.

I am not set in my opinion, I wish to hear other people's sides so that I may have further evidence in choosing my final position.

Alright. Critically proclaimed scientists such as Bill Nye have suggested that Evolution is taught in schools as the truth, as science. He also suggests that the reason Creationism isn't, is that it relies on needless faith, and is therefore unfit for the school system.

Well, define faith. Isn't faith trusting in something, believing in something?

I won't go into the details at this moment, but during the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, Bill Nye's resources for information were flawed. It cannot be proven that Evolution, nor the 'Big Bang' have actually occurred. Therefore, the idea of Evolutionism is also, strongly based on faith.

If the reason Creationism is avoided in schools is because of the faith involved, is it sensible for Evolution to be taught as science, when it too, incredulously, relies on faith?

I believe that either both should be explained or neither. Therefore giving each student a choice to believe what they find most valid after reviewing the facts for themselves.

Thank you.


Would you teach flat earth theory in public schools or the idea that the moon landing is faked? Would you teach that the sun goes around the earth? No. These ideas have been thoroughly debunked. Creation is exactly the same.

Creationism and Science

97% of scientists believe in evolution according to a pew research poll. There is virtually no scientific support for creationism (1).

Creationism Main Arguments

The main arguments of creationism are based on bad science. One argument is that all human evolution fossils would fit in a coffin. However this is false. There are now 4,000 human evolution fossils(2, CC030). Another argument is that macroevolution has never been observed. Evolution is very slow so it would be hard to observe them. We have many transitional fossils showing evolution.

Creationists claim that we lack transitional fossils, however we find many. For example Homo Erectus (humans), Homo Habilis (humans), Archaeopteryx (birds), Tiktaalik (land animals), Dorudon (whales), and Mesohippus (horses) are just a few of the vast number of transitionals we have (3).

We also have evidence from retroviruses which are DNA insertions from viruses that were inherited. We find these virus genes including insertion points all over our DNA. 98.5% of these are shared in both humans and chimpanzees. Now why would we share retrovirus insertion points if these insertions happened to humans and apes independently and we did not inherit these from a common ancestor.

When we look at the minor DNA differences between these insertions among the various apes and us, we find a hierarchal family tree of differences that closely matches the one we have already (4). Creationism is based on bad refuted arguments, evolution has solid evidence.

Debate Round No. 1


As I said before, I came in looking for facts to support an opinion that I could then use to base my belief in either one or the other.

So, while I'm not disagreeing with you, I would like to clarify my question, or at least, to further it.

I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I'm no longer saying it is incorrect. But, though you gave me substantial supposed evidence toward that side of the argument, you gave none of your alleged evidence for the argument against Creationism.

Before accepting one side, I'd like to know why the opposing choice is so unfit for belief. If you have an answer, it'd be much appreciated.

Thank you. (And seriously, no need to be robotic. I'm up for a nice discussion.)


In the last round I established that there is strong evidence for evolution and many of the creationist claims against evolution are myths. The central arguments creationism has like the lack of fossils are easily debunked and that is why there so few creation scientists. I want to throw out a couple more for good measure.

A central creationist claim is that most mutations are harmful. In actuality most are actually neutral. Only 3 out of 175 are harmful (1, CB101). Another is that bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex and would lose function without all parts. However we have already found cell structures that act as filters that have partial flagella structure (CB 200.1). I don't have time to go over all these claims, however from these examples we can tell that creationism is based on myths that have already been debunked.

"you gave none of your alleged evidence for the argument against Creationism."

You referred to creationism as what was being debated in the Ken Ham debate. This creationism claims that God individually made all species. Evolution contradicts this creationism so all evidence for evolution is evidence against creationism. As said before, the central creationism arguments have been debunked and so cannot be taught.

Also, in order to teach something as anything other than a myth and as mere opinion in public school it requires evidence. So as long as no evidence is provided for creationism it should not be taught as a non-myth. Evidence against creationism is not required. Since no evidence for creationism was provided in this debate there is no established basis for it to be taught.

This debate has shown that creationism is faith-based while evolution is evidence-based. Its lacks any verification and its arguments have been debunked. So it is no better than flat earth beliefs and like these beliefs, should only be presented as a myth and opinion-based.

Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dan4reason 2 years ago
I have no problem with creationism being taught as a myth along with flat earth, aliens, or Zeus. However that doesn't seem to be what my opponent wants. He seems to want it to be taught as possible alternative. In my argument I showed that evolution has a lot of evidence. You don't need faith.
Posted by Joemorris666 2 years ago
he is very correct about the fact both you must have faith in I think in biology courses they both should be taught unbiasedly and maybe throw in other theories from earlier civilizations.
Posted by JacobAnderson 2 years ago
I believe that both should be taught in schools, but more as an elective course such as religious studies or some theoretical sciences class. Students should be able to learn about what they are truly interested in, but as a core class's curriculum, there is no reason any evolution or creationism should be taught.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Haroush 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think neither side won this case as Pro didn't raise enough questions and con didn't give enough fact based reason as to how the big bang isn't based on faith and that evolution isn't an idea that came from the Bible.