Creationism should be taught in public schools in the US
Debate Rounds (3)
the criteria for whether something should be taught in science class is whether or not it abides by the scientific method (the steps are 1. Formulation of a question, 2. Hypothesis, 3. Prediction, 4. Testing, 5. Analysis). And for it to be taught it must also be peer reviewed and a general consensus must be reached.
conversely, religious teachings start with teachings that are assumed to be true, and then anything that can be used to seemingly support the religion will be used as justification. this is not a scientific process. i encourage religion to be taught in mythology classes, but unless a creationist idea qualifies as science, it should not be represented as such.
also, how would you teach creationism in a science class? unless you are going to indoctrinate them with a specific religion, all you can really say is "god created everything". that takes 2 seconds. what would a test look like? the answer to every question would be "god did it".
there is no global conspiracy to teach atheistic lies. religion is based on faith and dying superstitions, not a scientific unbiased process. it's not as though someone just makes up scientific facts and everyone accepts them. scientific teachings are based on a great deal of evidence. think of evolution - there is a vast amount of detailed research in many specific areas, all of which support our understanding of evolution.
if scientists were making up facts to contradict god, then wouldnt they have made up some explanation a long time ago for how the big bang began? they havent reached a consensus on how the big bang was caused because they dont know yet. they arent just going to make stuff up and call it fact. that is what religious people do. how do you scientifically prove that there is a being who is all loving? or all knowing? or all powerful? or omnipresent? or that he created everything magically? that line of thought belongs in a PHILOSOPHY class, not science class.
so you think no science should be taught? should we ban math too just because a couple people might say that 2+2=5? should we not teach history because some people dispute what is taught?
saying science shouldnt be taught is like saying that news should be banned because it could be propaganda. a lot of news is propaganda, but the more you news you hear, the more information you have to form your own educated opinion on what is true and what isnt, and which sources are trusted and which arent.
people generally do not want to be atheists anyway, because they think it's depressing, so if they are taught things like evolution, they will not accept it until they study it with a great deal of scrutiny, and even then they sometimes dont accept it. students are also generally encouraged to study the material and the details, not to just accept an atheistic position. religious people are the ones who are against challenging teachings. educators encourage it.
also, becoming an atheist doesnt make people into "immoral thugs". atheists have a disproportionately low population in prisons. atheists are also generally more intelligent, and have lower divorce rates.
makeshift8 forfeited this round.
induced 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.