The Instigator
WhateverItTakes
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kwhite7298
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism Should be Taught in Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 33112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

WhateverItTakes

Pro

Today I will be arguing for the cause of Creationism being taught in schools. Firstly, I would like to quote Patrick Henry, a proud Founding Father and a true Patriot, best known for his saying "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" but had many other very interesting things to say. He stated that "It can not be emphasized too much or too often that this nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." An interesting thing to recollect, when we have children in schools believing that our Founders really weren't all that Christian, and furthermore aren't taught the idea of Creationism at all.

Which in essence is propaganda, is it not? Propaganda is defined as strictly one-sided information, with the intent of not letting the audience know about the other side of the debate. Therefore, if we only teach our children Darwinism, isn't that propaganda? Darwinism is a religion as much as Islam, and Christianity, and Buddhism, and the rest; in fact Webster's Dictionary defines it as "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." And while Darwinists will tell you how they have proof, they have no more proof than any of us have. Evolution? Exists. Evolution to the point that our ancestors are bacteria? A far-out theory. That doesn't mean it can't be taught, but who could say it should be the only thing we teach?

And as Patrick Henry reminds us, this nation was founded upon Christian principles. You don't have to like it, but it was. Censoring history we don't find popular and all-appealing isn't appropriate or right. We have a secular government, but not founded by secular men. I might also mention that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does say that all men have the Freedom of Religion. Note it says freedom
of
religion, not freedom from religion. You don't have the right to live a life without religious influence, and you aren't ever going to.

So let's all just look at the facts and mutually understand that omitting religion from schools is wrong and single-minded. Where is the power invested in any of us to not tell anyone, especially children, the whole truth? It doesn't exist, and never will. Thank you.
Kwhite7298

Con

Today I will be arguing against the cause of Creationism being taught in schools.

Contention 1: Creationism is not science

Creationism (Intelligent Design) relies on the mentality that a possibility should be taught as science. It has been compared to a scientific theory, specifically Darwinist theory for today's case. However, Darwin's theory has been continuously proven, whereas Intelligent Design has a lack of evidence supporting it.

Contention 1a. : Australopithecis

Australopithecis the link between man and ape. Creationists contend that men are not apes, therefore, Darwinism is not true. However, Darwinism relies on the theory of evolution in different cases. Australopithecis is this cross.

Contention 1b. : Chromosome #2

Creationists also contend that Men are not apes because apes have 24 chromosomes whereas humans have only 23. However, upon close examination of human chromosome #2, Darwinists have proven that over time, the human chromosomes #2 and #24 have fused to form a mega chromosome #2. This is true because of the two centrioles and three end codings versus the standard 2 and 1, respectively

Contention 1c. : Canadian Arctic Digs

Creationists contend that the link between the first walking creatures and the fish of ancient times is missing, however, Canadian arctic digs in the past few years have found creatures that prove this link.

Contention 1d. : Archaeopteryx

Creationists contend that the link between dinosaurs and birds is unproven, however, fossils of the beast names Archaeopteryx prove this link. Archaeopteryx is a feathered beast with the wings of a bird but the teeth of a dinosaur. It is bird-hipped. This is the link that we need.

Summary of C1:
Intelligent design is not science because it has not been proven over the year as Darwinism has. Intelligent design, therefore, should not be taught in schools. My opponent needs to prove that ID has been proven over the years and also must disprove the links stated beforehand.


Contention 2: Intelligent Design is too broad

Without specification, nothing can be taught in schools.

Contention 2a : Religious Creationism

Religious creationism should not be taught in schools becasue our country was founded on the principals of separation of church and state, equal protection for all religions, and freedom of speech. Religious creationism infringes on one of the goals stated in the preamble of the constitution -- to insure domestic tranquility. The amount of hostility and debates arising from such a topic would be astronomical.

Contention 2b : Pastafarianism

Pastafarianism, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, was created as a protest method to teaching Creationism in a school in Kansas. This "religion" believes that the universe was created by a giant spaghetti monster, pictured with two large eyes and meatballs intwined with it. Unfortunately, there is a difference between the creationism that my opponent supports and a giant pasta ball, however, it is too difficult to be defined.

Summary of Contention 2:

In order for my opponent to wind this contention, it must be proven that Religious Creationism would not create hostility with in America, and my opponent must provide a definition of creationism that encompasses RC but not Pastafarianism.




For these reasons, I strongly urge a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
WhateverItTakes

Pro

I would like to first congratulate my opponent on a successful first round, and remind everyone that I am arguing for the cause of Creationism being taught in schools.

I must protest, however, the first contention made by my opposition. He stated that "Darwin's theory has been continuously proven, whereas Intelligent Design has a lack of evidence supporting it." This is, contradictory to common belief, not true. I find it appropriate to start out here by defining the word "faith." Webster's dictionary defines it as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," which Darwin's theory, again, does not have. Although my opposition has presented very convincing fossil evidence among other things, none of this is
proof. Proof is absolute, indisputable facts; but Darwinism's foundation is assumptions based on fossil evidence. Creationism has evidence that is just about as convincing: The Holy Bible for example. It is not one book, but as many as 73 different books compiled into the same text. 73 different accounts, some thousands of years apart, many written by different people; and they all say the exact same thing.

Now this sounds like science. Science, as Webster tells us again, is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding." Now does the Bible not let us "know" more and lead us away from "ignorance or misunderstanding," even to atheists? It may not be true, but it teaches us all something, even if it's only that Jesus was a liar. So I would argue that Creationism is absolutely science. I have henceforth answered all of my opponent's first contention, except for "[Proving] that ID has been proven over the years and also must disprove the [rest of his first contention]." I will not do so because it is not possible to prove a faith or disprove Darwin (also a faith). It is also impossible to prove that Darwin's theory has been proven over the years and disprove ID.

And in response to my opponent's Contention Two, Intelligent Design for the purposes of this argument is just that: Intelligent Design. The idea that a higher being created all of us is not broad, it just has many different takes on it. These, however, do not neccesarily all have to be discussed to teach the broader idea of Intelligent Design.

As far as the founding of our nation, I find it a mistake for any opposer of Creationism being included in the education system to mention it. The founders were all strong Christians, and at the time Creationism wasn't mentioned in schools--It was all they used to teach how to read and write.
The New England Primer is a perfect example. There is a Biblical reference for every letter of the alphabet, Biblical questions, etc. There is not a page that does not have a reference to God. The separation of church and state was intended to be applied to the government, not the schools. There was not a federally run school system in those days. Also, I find it a mistake to mention the "equal protection for all religions, and freedom of speech." By teaching all religions instead of just Darwinism, we are protecting all of them; and the freedom of speech is completely irrelevant. I would ask for an explanation of its reference by my opposition in the next round for clarification purposes.

I am not sure what to say in response to the B section of the second contention made by my opponent. No one, not even the creators of the Pasta Church, believed it or wanted it taught. It was not a major religion, and therefore not worthy of being added to a classroom. I am speaking on behalf of the idea of Creationism, not individual religions. If individual religions are to be brought into play, then only major religions ought be factored. I thought that would be easy enough to understand, and I am sorry for any misunderstanding of that apparently unapparent definition.

It is because I support the right of all religions to be taught, not just one (Darwinism), that I support creationism being taught in our schools. Not doing so is definably propaganda, and morally wrong. I implore the voters to provide a pro vote in the name of the Constitution.
Kwhite7298

Con

I am arguing against teaching creationism in schools.

My text from here on out will be in bold whereas my opponent's will be in regular text.

--

Today I will be arguing for the cause of Creationism being taught in schools. Firstly, I would like to quote Patrick Henry, a proud Founding Father and a true Patriot, best known for his saying "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" but had many other very interesting things to say. He stated that "It can not be emphasized too much or too often that this nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." An interesting thing to recollect, when we have children in schools believing that our Founders really weren't all that Christian, and furthermore aren't taught the idea of Creationism at all.

Which in essence is propaganda, is it not? Propaganda is defined as strictly one-sided information, with the intent of not letting the audience know about the other side of the debate. Therefore, if we only teach our children Darwinism, isn't that propaganda?

My opponent is misrepresenting the definiton of propaganda here. My opponent contends that teaching Darwinism only is propaganda, however, fails to realize that creationism has been taught in schools in the past. The teaching has been removed because it has been proven faulty. Therefore, such arguments are indeed null and void.

Darwinism is a religion as much as Islam, and Christianity, and Buddhism, and the rest; in fact Webster's Dictionary defines it as "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." And while Darwinists will tell you how they have proof, they have no more proof than any of us have. Evolution? Exists. Evolution to the point that our ancestors are bacteria? A far-out theory. That doesn't mean it can't be taught, but who could say it should be the only thing we teach?

Darwinism is not a religion because a religion is based on faith by definition. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Darwinism has support, which supporters take as proof. To one, it may not be proof, however, to the supporters, it is proof. Therefore, it is not a religion.

And as Patrick Henry reminds us, this nation was founded upon Christian principles. You don't have to like it, but it was. Censoring history we don't find popular and all-appealing isn't appropriate or right. We have a secular government, but not founded by secular men. I might also mention that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does say that all men have the Freedom of Religion. Note it says freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion. You don't have the right to live a life without religious influence, and you aren't ever going to.

This nation was founded on principles of equality just as much as religion.

So let's all just look at the facts and mutually understand that omitting religion from schools is wrong and single-minded. Where is the power invested in any of us to not tell anyone, especially children, the whole truth? It doesn't exist, and never will. Thank you.

S ----
I must protest, however, the first contention made by my opposition. He stated that "Darwin's theory has been continuously proven, whereas Intelligent Design has a lack of evidence supporting it." This is, contradictory to common belief, not true. I find it appropriate to start out here by defining the word "faith." Webster's dictionary defines it as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," which Darwin's theory, again, does not have. Although my opposition has presented very convincing fossil evidence among other things, none of this is
proof.Proof is absolute, indisputable facts; but Darwinism's foundation is assumptions based on fossil evidence. Creationism has evidence that is just about as convincing: The Holy Bible for example. It is not one book, but as many as 73 different books compiled into the same text. 73 different accounts, some thousands of years apart, many written by different people; and they all say the exact same thing.

Words are just words; stories are just stories. Basing the faith of our youth based on the writings of 73 different books, which were influenced by each other and the thought at the time, is not logical. Based on the same logic, the earth is flat because the scholars of the 16th century contended it to be.

Now this sounds like science. Science, as Webster tells us again, is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding." Now does the Bible not let us "know" more and lead us away from "ignorance or misunderstanding," even to atheists? It may not be true, but it teaches us all something, even if it's only that Jesus was a liar. So I would argue that Creationism is absolutely science. I have henceforth answered all of my opponent's first contention, except for "[Proving] that ID has been proven over the years and also must disprove the [rest of his first contention]." I will not do so because it is not possible to prove a faith or disprove Darwin (also a faith). It is also impossible to prove that Darwin's theory has been proven over the years and disprove ID.

http://video.pbs.org...

And in response to my opponent's Contention Two, Intelligent Design for the purposes of this argument is just that: Intelligent Design. The idea that a higher being created all of us is not broad, it just has many different takes on it. These, however, do not neccesarily all have to be discussed to teach the broader idea of Intelligent Design.

'Broad' and 'too many takes' are two practically synonymous phrases.

As far as the founding of our nation, I find it a mistake for any opposer of Creationism being included in the education system to mention it. The founders were all strong Christians, and at the time Creationism wasn't mentioned in schools--It was all they used to teach how to read and write.

The founders were also people who called for equality, separation of church and state, and fair treatment.

The New England Primer is a perfect example. There is a Biblical reference for every letter of the alphabet, Biblical questions, etc. There is not a page that does not have a reference to God. The separation of church and state was intended to be applied to the government, not the schools. There was not a federally run school system in those days. Also, I find it a mistake to mention the "equal protection for all religions, and freedom of speech." By teaching all religions instead of just Darwinism, we are protecting all of them; and the freedom of speech is completely irrelevant. I would ask for an explanation of its reference by my opposition in the next round for clarification purposes.

With the goal of the education system to educate our youth, will they really learn anything if they are spending every day on a different subject? Continuity is key.

I am not sure what to say in response to the B section of the second contention made by my opponent. No one, not even the creators of the Pasta Church, believed it or wanted it taught. It was not a major religion, and therefore not worthy of being added to a classroom. I am speaking on behalf of the idea of Creationism, not individual religions. If individual religions are to be brought into play, then only major religions ought be factored. I thought that would be easy enough to understand, and I am sorry for any misunderstanding of that apparently unapparent definition.

Please define "major religion" and give examples how we can measure that.

It is because I support the right of all religions to be taught, not just one (Darwinism), that I support creationism being taught in our schools. Not doing so is definably propaganda, and morally wrong. I implore the voters to provide a pro vote in the name of the Constitution.

---



Since my opponent has failed to meet the BoP requirements of his side, all categories should be given to con.
(no definition, no proof for ID)

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 2
WhateverItTakes

Pro

WhateverItTakes forfeited this round.
Kwhite7298

Con

My opponent has failed to meet his obligation to his half of the BoP. I, however, have proved that creationism should not be taught in schools because there is no efficient way to define creationism, intelligent design is contradictory to the rights set forth in the constitution, and creationism lacks the basis that darwinist theory has.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.