Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.
Debate Rounds (2)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Haroush 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.