Creation should be taught in public schools
Debate Rounds (5)
Professor Michael Reiss, director of education for the Royal Society, said banning creationism from the classroom could backfire at a time of growing religious fundamentalism.
Creationists take a literal view of the Bible and Koran and believe that the world was created in six days.
Some argue that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution is a hoax.
Professor Reiss, a Church of England minister and former biology teacher, said he strongly believed in teaching the theory of evolution to children.
But rather than dismiss creationism as wrong or stupid, teachers should be prepared to discuss it as another 'worldview'.
'It arises from my time as a biology teacher in schools when I realise that simply banging on about evolution didn"t lead some pupils to change their views at all,' he said.
'I had previously been rather evangelical about teaching evolution, trying to change pupil"s minds.
'Now I would be rather more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe.'
Around one in 10 British schoolchildren come from families with creationist beliefs, Professor Reiss said at the British Association science festival in Liverpool.
Many of these children came from Muslim backgrounds or families with fundamental Christian views.
'There"s no controversy from a scientific point of view here,' he said.
'I"m very comfortable with the idea of the theory of evolution by natural selection is as well established as almost any scientific theory could be and it should be taught in school science lessons.'
But if teachers give the impression that children with creationist believes are wrong or stupid, they are likely to be turned off all science, he said.
He added: 'Some science teachers think that because creationism and intelligent design are scientifically invalid that anybody holding them is just being a bit stupid. That"s not something I would want to convey.
'Although pupils might have other irrational beliefs - about ghosts, tarot or astrology - creationism should be treated as a special case.
'The depth of sincerity with which people believe creation narratives from the scriptures - whether it is Islam, Christianity or some other religion - tends to be much greater than the belief that people have in horoscopes or astrology.'
But Professor Reiss added: 'Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis.
'However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
'I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a "worldview"; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility.'
In Britain there is growing pressure to include 'intelligent design' in schools - the belief that life is too complex to have evolved by natural selection.
In America, where around 40 per cent of children come from families who believe in creationism, some schools are teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
But the comments provoked an angry reaction from other scientists.
Professor Lewis Wolpert, a biologist at University College Medical School, London, said: 'Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes.
'There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.'
And Dr John Fry, Reader in Physics at University of Liverpool, said: 'Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.
'I am completely in favour of challenging the scientific basis of evolution and understanding its strengths and weaknesses, just as I am in favour of challenging all other scientific theories: that is how we learn and make progress and that should certainly be a part of science lessons. But creationism doesn"t challenge science; it denies it.'
Last month, evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins criticised Muslim parents for 'importing creationism' into British schools.
The academic, who is professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, said: 'Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.
'Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with.
'The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.'
Professor Dawkins recently finished a television programme in which he went into a classroom of 15-year-olds at a London secondary school.
A few pupils told him they didn't believe in evolution because it ran contrary to their religious beliefs
I strongly disagree with the resolution that creation should be taught in public schools because firstly it has no scientific basis, and secondly, the government is morally obligated to be secular.
Before I get to my constructive argument, I would like to make sure you know the definitions.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonlyregarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein'stheory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
My constructive argument:
I am strongly of the belief that all religious beliefs, including creationism, should not be taught in public schools. Firstly because it has no scientific basis, and secondly, the government is morally obligated to be secular.
Creationism has no scientific basis. Schools are meant to teach students about proven theories and facts. Creationism is neither of those things. In fact, there is solid evidence proving creationism false. It is called evolution. If Creationism is proven wrong, why does it make sense to teach it in schools? That would be the equivalent of teaching kids that the earth is flat. Teaching creationism along side with evolution would tell kids that they are both just opinions and that evolution is debatable when it is clearly not.
Government funded schools have a moral obligation to be secular. If we start honoring creationism, we are morally obligated honour every other religion on earth. This idea is ridiculous. There are so many religions to recognise, it would be impossible. Even if we did somehow recognise every religion, how would we then also honour an equal field of thought; atheism? You can't have it both ways.
Honestly pros argument was very hard to refute, not because all his points were good, but because nearly his whole argument was very hard to follow quotes. In fact his whole debate was plagiarized. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Please refrain from plagiarizing your arguments in the future.
Look at the evidence for yourself. I think you"ll be amazed at just how many holes there are in the evolutionary theory as commonly believed today. And then there are the politics involved in the discovery and classification of artifacts. If an archaeologist successfully bolsters a claim that a few one-of-a-kind bone fragments somehow fit right into ancient human lineage, rather than just another unsuccessful "spur" out there, then long term research grants are a lot more forthcoming. Debate, counter-claims, political wrangling; "Survival of the fittest" at its finest.
One thing that most average people don"t know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen. It's not scientific to ignore the values which don't match current beliefs and to keep testing till they find a date they like. This topic will be discussed further in the section below titled: "Professionals, Competition & the Scientific Method".
Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in "the wrong order" or even upside down. And sometimes a geologist, archaeologist, or mining operation will be digging along and come across a few large logs upright and transversing what an evolutionist would have called "millions of years" but what a creationist would look at and see evidence of the Great Flood from the time of Noah - an Earth covered with a myriad of sedimentary rocks, often hundreds of feet deep and formed under great (though temporary, lasting under a year) pressure. In the forests near your home do you see dead trees that have stayed upright and undisturbed for the past few millions of years? Of course not! In some places ants won't leave picnickers alone for even one hour before moving in on the target. Insects and microbes are constantly on the look out for decay and unprotected food to take advantage of. Upright tree trunks are mute testimony to rapid, deep sedimentary deposition. Evolutionary theory, as currently believed, requires structural modification or to be completely replaced with an entirely different theory of our ancient origins.
The Flood theory can readily handle strata which, by exception, stacks in "evolutionary" order. The creationist can also discuss layers which have stacked "upside-down" - since they"re not such - if the Flood is a historical event. Evolutionists though, must conjure up a myriad of exceptions when dealing with the real fossil evidence we see in the world today. (These exceptions often require more faith than does the Bible"s historical account of what happened!)
Is it necessarily scientific (but not religious) to exclude God in geologic strata interpretation? Is it necessarily religious (but not scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation? If our (supposed?) Creator could, within one of many possible dimensions, also operate as a Scientific Mathematician then the two are not at all at odds. And in that case such a belief system with no god(s) on top would merely be another false religion out there; a religion (a system of beliefs) which detracts from or denies the invisible yet obvious hand of the true Maker. Evolution, as a belief system about origins should be considered on its scientific merits, not as an article of blind faith - that it "must" have happened.
There is significant evidence that the Earth"s climate used to be much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today. This is in keeping with the Bible"s record in Genesis. It is not in keeping with modern evolutionary beliefs. Fossils and some still frozen remains (the mammoths, for example) in the Arctic and (palm leaf imprints) in the Antarctic may be better explained if there was a firmament (thick cloud canopy) above the Earth prior to the Flood, as recorded in the Bible.
COAL & OIL (Section 2 of 27)
The existence of fossil fuels defies evolutionary theory, a primary evidence that there was a Great Flood
Have you ever sat around a campfire in the woods? In the Western US many forests are at least one or two thousand years old, some are much older. Individual trees die and begin to decay but the forest lives on. After putting out the campfire did you have to worry about the soil below catching on fire? If not, then where did all of the world"s coal and oil come from? Decaying vegetation adds minerals to topsoil. When you dig down a couple feet (about half a meter) you"ll see part way down a marked change. The topsoil, that nearest the surface, the live soil actively transforms death into renewed life supporting material.
Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer. Yet oil and coal power our modern world. Buried at all sedimentary depths - they exist indeed.
When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under intense pressure from deep below. Entire forests and jungles of life were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy. We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought. Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years? Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually exists) when pondering our ancient origins.
Modern evolutionary theory simply cannot explain why all this coal and oil is down there, sometimes at 10,000 feet or more. Folks, that depth is 2 miles (about 3km) straight down. 2 miles thick of various layers of sediment on top of a concentrated layer of crushed, preserved plant-derived carbon, and often with occasional volcanic layers interspersed in between.
Peat forms in swamps containing low oxygen or almost antiseptic conditions. The partially decomposed material builds up below and hosts the penetrating roots of successive plant life above. In the theory of evolution as believed today, peat buildup and then slow burial afterwards allows for the subsequent time and pressure to slowly make coal. Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration. But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn"t and doesn"t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process. Again ... please consider the real fossil record (not artist's conceptions) when pondering our ancient history.
Again, his argument was completely plagiarised! http://www.creationism.org...
At this point, I think I win by default.
None the less, here is my argument:
Pro, (or at least the person who wrote that article), has no idea what a theory is. All theories are facts supported by proof, and backed up by an explanation that is also supported by proof. I do not know what this "overwhelming proof of creationism" is, but I need to remind you that the bible is not a scientific journal. "The first day go made the earth..." Is not an apt. description. It has no proof, and does not show the mechanism behind the creation.
Evolution, unlike creationism, actually had lots of proof. Most Creationists claim that evolution is unprovable because we cannot test it in real time. That actually is not true. Take for example, bacteria. We can make bacteria evolve by applying antibiotics. Bacteria can only create a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to know that in every group of bacteria, there a some which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is used on the bacteria cluster, it will kill most bacteria, leaving behind a few bacteria, which is neccasary to happen if the bacteria is to evolve. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Even if you don't believe in fossil records, you must admit that the above test is solid proof.
For these reasons and the others that I stated in round one, the resolution must fall.
Evolution and Creationism ARE BOTH THERORIES!!!!!!!!
theories plural of the"o"ry (Noun)
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
They teach evolution in public school and its a theory so why not teach creation too?
There are different types of evolution!
Microevolution and Macroevolution
Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.
EXP: A Dog can change from smaller to bigger
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population " changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species" coloring or size.
EXP: Dog changes to a cat
Lots of people just think of evolution as one thing but there are different kinds of it.
Scientist can prove Macroevtion but not Microevolution because if Microevolution is true was true there would be millions of transformatn fossils, but they have not found one tranformation fossil...why you may ask because they dont exist!
Macroevolution is more common for beng taught in schools than Microevolution which is usually taught in highschool.
Since evolution is a theory wouldnt it be fair to teach creation in school!
An now that I think about it more I relize that it would actually be fair to teach both of them!
Seeing that they are both theorys...thnx for helping me understand and come to that conclusion! :)
I feel the need to explain th difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein'stheory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
From these definitions, it's clear to see that evolution is a theory, and creationism is a hypothesis. Mixing up the definitions causes some people too assume that both evolution and creatioism are valid theories, when they are not.
Schools do not teach hypotheses. They only teach theories.
I'm not sure why you brought up micro and macro evolution, as it is not relevent at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Intelligent design is a scientific theory: A scientific theory
is supported by extensive research and repeated
experimentation and observation in the natural world.
Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an """intelligent" agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable. -ucsusa.org
Anyway I brought Microevolution and Macroevolution up because
one of them can not be explained and or proven but they are both
evolution and evolution is still obviously counted as a theory.
Theory-the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
Many people think that evolution is all one big thing...
there are different kinds there are micro and macro
and microevolution has limited evidence, if any.
But schools are teaching both kinds of evolution
anyway even though both arnt necessary for the
If you actually do some research on creation
you will be able to come to the conclusion that
creation or inteligent design is actually a theory like evolution.
rosstheboss forfeited this round.
futurelawyer7 forfeited this round.
rosstheboss forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.