The Instigator
charlie_v07
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution

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 5 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,312 times Debate No: 46387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

charlie_v07

Pro

Creationism in the United State's school systems is not only frowned upon but also abrogated which begs the question of where this nation"s point of view stands. It seems that double standards and hypocrisy tend to bestow feelings of confusion for the citizens here in America where the very pledge of allegiance mentions not only "god", but also the creator of the world. So why is creationism so low and inferior compared to the concept of evolution? Various opinions bring up strong points but at the end of the day both ideas are rehashed from a hundred year war in the school systems in America. Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few and according to a poll of several thousand Americans, twenty percent believed that only evolution should be taught in schools, and sixteen percent believed that only creationism should be taught. The remainder supported the notion of teaching both: evolution in the science class, and creation in class.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Creationism, as is commonly pushed by theists, should not be taught in schools along side evolution for one simple reason; creationism (at least Young Earth Creationism) is false. Evolution is true. Think about it this way, would we teach 1 + 1 = 3 "alongside" 1 + 1 = 2? No. Why? Because 1 + 1 = 3 is false, and 1 + 1 = 2 is true. Would we teach that the 41st President of the United States is George Washington "alongside" teaching that it is George Bush? No. Why? Because George Washington being the 41st president is false, and George Bush being the 41st President is true. Similarly, we shouldn't teach Creationism "alongside" Evolution, because Creationism is myth, and Evolution is rooted in scientific evidence. Teaching Creationism alongside with Evolution is like teaching that there existed fairies 65 million years ago along with dinosaurs.

Basically, we should not be confusing kids and teaching them things that are wrong (or things we have no good evidence for). I don't want my daughter to learn 1 + 1 = 3 along with 1 + 1 = 2. That is just horrible education. Because Creationism contradicts Evolution, and Evolution is most likley true (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism [http://www.talkorigins.org...], which is still less than the percentage of Historians who accept that the Holocaust was a hoax!). Would we teach that the Holocaust didn't happen, along side the view that it did happen to our children? Of course not, that is insanity! So, we shouldn't teach something like Creationism, over something scientifically backed up like Evolution.

The only polls that count are the polls regarding what the experts say. The public is basically ignorant to scientific matters, so even if support of evolution is low with them, who cares? They aren't the experts...
Debate Round No. 1
charlie_v07

Pro

Evolution is not as established or concrete as "1+1=2" and although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it, evolution is just credible as creationism. Most of evolution is but a theory as to how the universe came to be when most of it"s evidence comes from Carbon-14 dating; it is it not a precise method of calculations due to it"s limitations. "Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years." (http://www.answersingenesis.org...). With such claims as to the Pre-historic era and the Jurassic period, which are dated to be millions of years ago, how are scientists emanating these allegations as to how the world began and has been going about this whole time? Therefore evolution in fact is not at you say "1+1=2". You quoted that " (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism) and through your citation, it revealed that these "scientists" are but engineers and computer scientists. "However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.)."

At the end of the day creationism is but a theory and a belief pertaining to its evidences found just as much as evolution, yet laws like the separation of church and state stigmatize this topic due to its "paradoxical" complex that leads people to believe that all religion is absurd in science. Creationists do not want to replace evolution with creationism in schools, "Not all creationists argue against scientific evidence. Some simply prefer to believe that God had a part in it rather than not knowing. They don"t belittle scientific theory or try to argue against it, they simply want to believe that the large unknown force that caused all life, as we know it was a deity of some kind."
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Evolution is not as established or concrete as '1+1=2' and although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it, evolution is just credible as creationism."

The analogy was just to show the difference between teaching something that is true, versus teaching something that is true alongside with something false. Even though evolution is not as concrete as "1+1=2", it was still a valid analogy in context. Regardless, you say that creationism is just as credible, but this would mean that there is just as much evidence to support Creationism, as Evolution. However, this has not been supported (my opponent has the burden of proof in the debate to establish the resolution). The reason creationism is false is that it contradicts evolution (YEC states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that common descent is false), however the evidence of common descent is high due to the discovery of chromosome #2 in humans [http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)], plus we know the Earth is billions of years old [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...].

Creationism's predictions have been chewed up.

"Most of evolution is but a theory as to how the universe came to be when most of it's evidence comes from Carbon-14 dating; it is it not a precise method of calculations due to it's limitations."

There are so many things wrong with the above I do not even know where to begin. First of all, Evolution is not a theory as to how the universe came to be. The theory on how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory [http://science.nasa.gov...]. Evolution is the theory on how life changes over time [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Also, most of the evidence of evolution pertains to the fossil record and DNA; not Carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 dating isn't the only method used to the determine the age of the Earth due to its limitations, this is why radiometric dating is used as well [http://www.talkorigins.org...]. Additionally, for something to be called a Theory in science, it has to be backed up by a lot of evidence. There is no evidence to support Creationism, and evidence against it.

"'Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years." (http://www.answersingenesis.org......). With such claims as to the Pre-historic era and the Jurassic period, which are dated to be millions of years ago, how are scientists emanating these allegations as to how the world began and has been going about this whole time? Therefore evolution in fact is not at you say "1+1=2". You quoted that " (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism) and through your citation, it revealed that these "scientists" are but engineers and computer scientists. "However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.).'

Talkorigins.org shut the above argument down already:

"Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990)." [http://www.talkorigins.org...]


"At the end of the day creationism is but a theory and a belief pertaining to its evidences found just as much as evolution, yet laws like the separation of church and state stigmatize this topic due to its "paradoxical" complex that leads people to believe that all religion is absurd in science."

Creationism is not a scientific theory [http://www.patheos.com...]. In order to be a Theory in science, there has to have a lot of evidence to support it, and it is has to have backing by the scientific community. As I stated, we have evidence that Creationism is false, and Evolution is true, plus less than 0.15% of scientists accept Creationism.

Imagine if we taught things to our students that around 0.15% of the experts believed alongside the things that have consensus. This would mean we would have to say Holocaust denial is just as credible as the "theory" that the Holocaust happened. This would cause educational mayhem. No. Teaching Creationism to children is child abuse, and should not be tolerated. I don't want to live in a society where we teach our children things that are false, and have no good evidence to support them.

"Creationists do not want to replace evolution with creationism in schools, 'Not all creationists argue against scientific evidence. Some simply prefer to believe that God had a part in it rather than not knowing. They don"t belittle scientific theory or try to argue against it, they simply want to believe that the large unknown force that caused all life, as we know it was a deity of some kind."

It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you have hard evidence for, and there is none for Creationism. Thus, it shouldn't be taught in schools. Otherwise, we would be teaching any wacky theory people come up with, and confusing the heck out of our children, instead of giving them a proper education based on evidence and facts.

Debate Round No. 2
charlie_v07

Pro

Evolution is true.

As taught in the educational systems here in the United States, Evolution is but a theory to mankind as of now. "Theory", is defined as "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true", therefore how can my opponent make such allegations as to the certainty of evolution? Truth is but a metaphysical claim. By claiming that empiricism is the only truth to the question of evolution, it sparks questions relating to a universe without a creator, such as the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory is only but claim that states, "The universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density"

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. With this in mind how was The Big Bang Theory produced? How is spontaneous combustion in fact a theory of how the universe, the planets, the earth and all inside of it created from one single spark that came from a vast and infinite amount of nothingness? Quintessence is what scientists and physicists have eluded to, for the cause of this spontaneous combustion from nothing. Quintessence is defined as "a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe. During this phase, fractions of a second after the big bang, space-time expanded exponentially" http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

How can anyone rational believe that "fractions of a second after the big bang, space-time expanded exponentially" and thus created the universe, the stars, the world without an architect? Creationism may be stigmatized, as a "lack-luster" belief without true evidence, but in reality the evidence is all around us point to a creator. Fact is that life cannot spontaneously come into existence. It must be created by another life. Being true, life must have existed before any life at all, in order to created more life. This life would have had to be eternal (since there was no one to create it), thus it would have been a creator.

There is not a single thing that exists that did not have a designer and creator. Even the simplest little plastic tip on a shoelace had a designer and creator. If that simple object had a designer and creator, how in the world did something as complex as life itself just happen by accident? It could not. Life, the Universe, and everything therein must have had a designer and creator.

Going back to Thermodynamics, " In logic there is a principle that states: every effect must have an adequate cause. This is the basis of all science. This "law" of correct thinking bears a relationship to the origin of the universe. It is well established that the universe has not existed forever. Dr. Robert Jastrow, internationally known space scientist, declared "modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe."
If the universe has not existed forever, how can its origin be explained? There are only two possibilities: it was self-created; or it was created by something or someone other than itself, and of a nature different than the material. However, no material thing is able to create itself. If that were possible, there would be evidence of such. But the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that matter is not now being created. Since matter could not have formed itself, it must have a non-material source, i.e., a "mind" cause. Great thinkers have concluded that this Mind is God." https://www.christiancourier.com...

The Theory of Evolution is not to be disparaged because as my opponent has stated repeatedly, evolution is in fact backed by facts and evidence but by analyzing such information, a creator is not paradoxical or irrational to this equation.

Teaching Creationism to children is child abuse, and should not be tolerated. I don't want to live in a society where we teach our children things that are false, and have no good evidence to support them.

"Arguing that creationism is forcing religion on children is akin to saying a history class on World War II is forcing fascism on children. Living in a society that allows people to express their views openly without fear of hostility as long as they do it nicely means that we will often have to hear things we disagree with. It"s important for children to know and understand these views. Painting every issue as black and white, right and wrong gives them an unrealistic view of a world. The same thing that gives you the right to not believe in religion gives other people the same right to practice it."

If evolution is but a theory, then why should creationism be disparaged when it has been such an integral part of society for thousands of years? "It"s an important part of history. Like it or not, creationism dominated human belief for centuries: even if you don"t believe it now, our ancestors did. Why should we skip over an integral part of human history simply because many don"t agree with it today? If that were true for all things we"d never teach children about World War II or slavery. If you don"t believe in creationism as a belief system, you have to agree that it was one of the fundamental factors of human civilization for hundreds of years. As such, it"s important that children are at least aware of it." http://listverse.com...

Once again, in no way is this topic meant to disparage evolution but to open a spectrum to both sides of two credible theories. "Around 200 years ago a man named Ignaz Semmelweis warned doctors that tiny creatures they couldn"t see were killing their patients because they wouldn"t wash their hands. He was belittled, beaten and died in abject poverty. Several years later he was proven right about everything he"d claimed. If you don"t believe in a deity, an omniscient force that controls the universe, is it really acceptable to claim that the entire notion is impossible?"
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well, he was wrong. Also, in science, to be called a "Theory" means it is almost certainly true due to all the evidence. It isn't like a common folk coming up with a "Theory". So, even if it is a "Theory", it is still true. Creationism is false. We shouldn't teach our children false things. That was my point.
Posted by charlie_v07 3 years ago
charlie_v07
MysticEgg didn't say you were not direct, he just said that I put forth more direct arguments.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Also, I don't know what MysticEgg is smoking, but I was pretty direct lol
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Crap, I wasn't aware of the short time limits, or else I definitely would have responded to his last round.
Posted by Frikcha 3 years ago
Frikcha
i don't think creationism should be taught in schools but i think evolution should be optional to a degree. a child deserves to learn what they want and the con has proved some valid points because teaching a child two contradicting ideas is detrimental to their education. what parents make their kids believe before they attend school is unfortunately out of our hands but if a parent wants their kid to learn about creationism than they can make them go to church. evolution on the other hand is backed up by extreme scientific evidence and saying that creationism and evolution have the same amount of validity is garbage. some people thousands of years ago wrote a book and now people worship it. it could be true but that is unlikely as someone else also wrote a book that people worship about space aliens who threw the souls of their enemies into a volcano and the souls are the people today... i suppose that could be true but in the end they both have nearly no substantial evidence behind them so logically we assume it is untrue. evolution on the other hand has tonnes of scientific evidence to support it with physical proof/evidence to support it. let me make a comparison: if you see a banana in front of you and you reach out to grab it, it will most likely be there. there's always the chance it's an illusion or your mind simply made itself believe is was there because you were hungry but most of the time it's there. now on the other hand you might see a giant number 7 running around eating everyone but in most cases you would put that down to too much sesame street. if we begin to question what defines something as real we begin to question some deep emotional crap that i'm too tired to start with right now. parents can go ahead and tell their kids that they are aliens souls from another planet or that you will burn for eternity if you are too proud of yourself but what kids truly deserve to learn is a scientific principle based on fact. it's only fair.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
charlie_v07Rational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: There was no contest here really. The crux of Pro's arguments have been thoroughly dismissed as anything other than good things to keep in mind when studying evolution. No positive reason supporting Pro came forth, and their refutations were insufficient where present. Con's argument were grounded in scientific evidence, refuted any criticisms satisfactorily, and used more, and more reliable sources than Pro. The first two vote point (agreed before and after) should actually award points.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
charlie_v07Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: For this debate I say con wins for better arguments and resources on the grounds that creationism is religious tradition.
Vote Placed by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
charlie_v07Rational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally I'd give the non-forfeiting side the arguments, but there is so much wrong with pro's argument that it doesn't deserve it as I shall explain. Round 1: Failed to cite source Round 2: Used a pro-creationism source to cite evidence about RCD Round 3: That's not what the Big Bang is. The universe did not come from nothing, it came from a highly dense point in space-time that could have had origins with a multiverse. Secondly, anything that was made by accident can be said to have not had a designer, as the object was never designed but simply came to be. Lastly, if you are going to assert that the Universe had a creator/designer, stating that all other objects have creators/designers doesn't mean that the universe has one. That is a logical fallacy.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 3 years ago
GaryBacon
charlie_v07Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct, since Con forfeited the last round. But Con's arguments were more convincing.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
charlie_v07Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for the forfeit. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments go to Pro because, although I disagree with him and agree with Con, he put forward more direct arguments, whereas I felt Con was beating around the bush somewhat. However, I'll give Con sources, because Pro's were too religious in nature when citing science.