The Instigator
Pase66
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Creationism and/or Intelligent Design should not be to 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 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 72608
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

Pase66

Pro

Creationism: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Intelligent Design: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

First round is for acceptance only, and from there, any format. I wish my opponent luck and would like to thank the audience and the voters. I hope we have a good debate!
Ragnar

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Pase66

Pro

Pase66 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

As disappointing as it is to be stood up, I’ll make this quick.

Argument:
Schools exist to teach. They should continue to do so.

Schools have two basic categories of teaching, the official teachers in class, and the other students inside and outside of the classroom.

While preventing the teachers from in any way teaching those terms would be simple enough, it would be impossible to enforce against the students. Not to mention, there would be zero benefit to students not knowing their meaning.

Furthermore, it'd be quite comical having a school policy against using those terms, but refusing to tell any of the students what they mea0 or why they aren't allowed to use them. In fact doing such would make them more likely to use them, so they'd probably need to be a secret list of banned words, which students get expelled for using (again, without being told why).

Debate Round No. 2
Pase66

Pro

Before I start, I would like to apologize for forfeiting the last round, as I had important familial matters to attend to.

I would like to thank Con for accepting the debate. Furthermore, I would like to apologize for the awkward phrasing of the question, for I typed it in a hurry. The actual question goes as such, "Creationism and/or Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools", of which I agree, and Con disagree's.

1.) The Science Classroom
I will expect Con to assert that creationism and/or ID can be taught in any class except science. Now, I will be focusing on k-12 public education, as higher level education leads to other discussions of its own. CID should not be taught in the science classroom because it is not science, but is based on religious beliefs.
Math
CID (Creationism and/or ID) should not be taught in math for obvious reasons. It would be a waste of time to talk about origins from a theological perspective, and there is no relation of CID and mathematics.
2.) Language Arts
If any classroom was to teach CID in their LA class, they would have to teach the origin stories from other religions (due to not being lenient towards Christianity). And the Bible shouldn't have to be part of the curriculum in any LA class, as that would infringe on the religious rights or students who don't share those beliefs.
History
3.) Mathematics
I hope you can see that CID is not relevant at all in mathematics what so ever.
4.) History
CID could be mentioned of how through history mankind attempted to understand its origins (this would be a stretch), but than again it would be impartial towards Christianity.
4.) Electives
I know of no electives (at least in my area) in which there is a religious studies class, or in fact any other class that would require the teaching of CID.

I hope one can see that teaching CID would be partial to Christianity, and to mention the other religions would take a lot of time to explain. Thus, CID should not be taught in schools.
Ragnar

Con

No reason has been given for why students should not teach each other about CID, such as talking about what they did with their weekend 'oh I went to church...' My argument from last round is entirely uncontested.

Rebuttals:
I shall follow pro's numbering, for easy reference.

"1.)The Science Classroom"
I agree that CID is not science (as much as there is scientific study of CID), however any discussion of the history of many sciences inevitably leads to mention of CID (usually Christian) and its impacts on the scientific community.

"2.) Language Arts"
A wide sampling of creation stories for comparative analysis, would be highly beneficial. As writer Joseph Laycock put it "the point is to empower students with useful knowledge about perspectives and worldviews other than their own" [1]. Students will eventual deal with people from all sorts of backgrounds, thus they should have a broad world-view, and knowledge of different cultures. And yes, religion is important to many cultures.

Also a Catholic K-12 school, has every right to teach what literature they deem important, and the Bible is a highly influential book.

"3.) Mathematics"
No argument, and such was already covered under science.

"4.) History"
Pro concedes that "CID could be mentioned of how through history mankind attempted to understand its origins," if he can offer no negatives to teaching CID in there, than the resolution is self-refuted.

To remove CID from a history class, would involve removing the majority of world history from schools. The world did not start in 2015, and to avoid repeated mistakes, people should be afforded the chance to learn from them. For example, the first nine crusades didn't work out [2], best not repeat that.

"[5].) Electives"
No negatives have been offered for an elective "religious studies class" (thank you for suggesting that), where many of the positives listed above could be consolidates into one classroom. Further over the years of schools, students could learn several variants of world religion, each with a class focused on each major one. And yes, teaching specifically Christian CID, is not mutually exclusive with teaching anything else.

Further Arguments:
English Class
Why should any English class not teach common words of the English language? Such as pro's own provided source from R1? The answer is they should, because cultural literacy is important. When someone from any religion talks about intelligent design, an 18 year old high school graduate should know that they mean "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence." Not agreeing with an idea, is no reason to have people be wholly ignorant to it's existence.

Sources:
[1] http://religionandpolitics.org...
[2] http://www.history.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Pase66

Pro

Pase66 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Conclusion:
Pro has forfeited half the debate rounds (both times while being active elsewhere on the site).

I have proven without question that both words have a firm place being taught in schools, if nothing else than for basic cultural literacy reasons. I of course have not said we should replace all classes with CID indoctrination centers.

Debate Round No. 4
Pase66

Pro

In the tradition of debate and conversation, Con has actually swayed my mind of whether CID should be taught. I still believe it shouldn't be taught as fact, but the significance of it is still great to not be mentioned. I now acknowledge that Con has swayed my mind, and has thus won this debate. I thank Con for this eye-opening conversation, and congratulate him on his victory/ changing my mind.
Ragnar

Con

Thank you, best of luck on your future debates.

Note to voters:
My personal recommendation for concessions are conduct to the side which conceded (regardless of forfeits), but arguments against them.

Of course arguments and conduct could be graded as normal, such as in the event of accidential concession, or concession as sarcasm.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I have zero pre-college education (no I was not home schooled, that would be pre-college education), is critical thinking really not taught in high school?
Posted by dub8 2 years ago
dub8
Really? What is the "mechanism that can be studied scientifically" that demonstrates universal common descent?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The theory of universal common ancestry is based on a mechanism that can be studied scientifically. A testable explanation is considered superior to statements that explain an observation as caused by unspecified supernatural activity. Intelligent Design does claim to explain the natural world " but falls dramatically short in the explanations it offers. Scientific ideas generate specific expectations about observations of the natural world that would support or refute the idea. However, because Intelligent Design doesn't specify what the Designer is or how the Designer operates, it cannot generate expectations specific enough to help us figure out whether the basic premises of Intelligent Design are correct or incorrect. Intelligent Design is untestable.
http://origins.swau.edu...
Posted by dub8 2 years ago
dub8
If Intelligent Design is to be classified as a "religious belief" then so is the theory of common descent. There's no empirical evidence that an unguided (or unintelligent) process can yield increasing complexity, information and new body plans.

Can anyone name a single "scientific" thing about the theory of common descent? Any empirical evidence at all to support this?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Critical thinking should be taught in school, because being taught how to think is more important then being taught what to think. Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism, it's a consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@really12
While it'd be a whole other debate, I could make a good argument in favor of that too.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
Should atheism be taught in school?
Posted by Pase66 2 years ago
Pase66
I would like to apologize for forfeiting the last round. I had important family issues to take care of, and I couldn't focus on this. But now I will be posting my argument soon.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@Missmedic,
While my upcoming argument will likely disagree, I personally agree with you.
Posted by dub8 2 years ago
dub8
The claim that "Creationism and intelligent design are based in religious faith" is just rhetoric, not a defensible position. If you feel differently, why don't you post a debate and defend that statement.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Pase66RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con delivered a knockout with a pro conceding.

Conduct     Pro FF several rounds
Argument    Pro concedes to con.  Con had a good debate on all points
Sources     Con was the only one to offer sources
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Pase66RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: full ff / concession
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Pase66RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro (eventually) gracefully concedes.