The Instigator
Dmot
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
otsietootsie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism should be taught in science classes

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 4 votes the winner is...
Dmot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,255 times Debate No: 36632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Dmot

Con

It is a simple question: Whether or not young earth creationism should be taught in science classes in general and more specifically in public schools.
This is not a question of whether or not evolution should be taught as well. This is a question of simply whether or not YEC specifically needs to be taught (alongside or without evolution...either way).

I say it should not be taught in science classes since it is not science.
I'll let the pro side make their argument first and then I will respond
otsietootsie

Pro

Creationism should, most definitely, be taught be taught in all schools, including public. There is a list of things that are not allowed to be discussed in public schools. It includes various topics such as global warming, pro-life and creationism. In public school, creationism and evolution/ the big bang should be taught alongside each other because in reality, they are both just theories. The teacher should teach creationism, but it is the student's choice to choose what to believe. After all, school is about educating individuals to be aware of all things.
Debate Round No. 1
Dmot

Con

Pro, thank you for entering into this debate with me.
Maybe I should have made the topic broader than YEC and just creationism in general.
But anyway, I would argue that creationism, defined as the literal 6-day creation story in Genesis about 6000 years ago should not be taught in science classrooms. The reason is because this is not a scientific theory any more than any other old story about how the earth came to be is a scientific theory.

Science tells us that the universe and the earth are much older than 6000 years. Science tells us that evolution did occur to an extent. Science tells us that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of our universe. Science does not yet have an answer to how life began. Science has a good explanation of how galaxies and our solar systems formed. All of this is because of observation, research, study, experimentation, and predictions.

Science is not perfect, it is ever-changing and growing. However science is the best tool we have to analyze the questions of our world. Science classrooms should teach what we know from scientific study. This is iimportant because if we do not, science classrooms simply end up teaching various ideologies and whoever has control gets to insert their ideology into the science curriculum. Science should simply rely on evidence. This is the beauty of science, it has the potential to be honest and unbiased. However introducing non-scientific theories simply because some people have this as their ideology is an affront to science and essentially hurts the entire process. This is what will cloud and muddy science in the future.

Finally, you say "both are just theories." The problem with this is that they are not both SCIENTIFIC theories. A theory in science isn't a hypothesis, a possible explanation. It is the best explanation given the evidence at the time. But here is one problem that I think comes up that we have to be clear on:
EVOLUTION, BIG BANG, OLD EARTH vs YOUNG EARTH, ABIOGENSIS, FORMATION OF GALAXIES, etc. are really all very different theories about very different things studied by very different people. We like to lump them together in the "science" bin and pin it up against the "God" bin. But this isn't right. These are all separate theories with their own merits and demerits. I think we can all agree on that. Because of this fact, we should just teach the best theory, and any other reasonable compeating theories in a science class..,

However, if there are theories, like creationism, which may be valid from a philosophical or religious perspective, they should not be taught AS science. This is because they are NOT science. Now science should not be anti-religion or anti-philosophy but it should not teach religion and philosophy as science.
otsietootsie

Pro

otsietootsie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dmot

Con

My argument above stands
otsietootsie

Pro

otsietootsie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Homosapien 3 years ago
Homosapien
Provided Evolution by natural selection and the big bang theory are taugh in all state funded/tax free religious schools/places of worship then I wouldn't take issue with it.

Teahc both in all facilities and let the students decide for themselves.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
And then someone accepts! Ha! :P
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Dmot,

The problem is, almost no one (not even I) would advocate teaching YEC in public schools. Even among Christians, there are varying interpretations of the Genesis account. Most people just believe that ID should be taught along-side Evolution. There many different Creationist views--Young Earth, Gap, Progressive, ID, Theistic Evolution, etc... Young Earth is the only one that doesn't hold to the scientific consensus on the age of the universe. But even within Young Earth, some believe only the Earth (or our solar system) is young.

I just think you're going to have a hard time finding someone to accept.

@SepticKitten,

We've been over this before... YEC, ID and Evolution are all worldviews--frameworks/sets of presuppositions by which information (from practically any source) is interpreted in relation to practically any field of science.

As I mentioned to Dmot, there are life scientists/biologists, geologists and paleontologists who hold to YEC/ID and do exactly the same science as those who hold to Evolution. The difference is that the information is interpreted and expressed differently depending on the worldview of the scientist(s) involved.

BTW: A "science" is any enterprise that involves the systematic building/organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. We are all doing the same science, using the same data, evidence and standards.

When you pretend (and promote) that this is not the case, it really makes you appear ignorant (even to thinking, Evolutionists/Atheists). I would advise a new tactic.

Lastly, you love to talk about Evolution as a proven fact. It may enjoy a majority consensus among life scientists, etc...but consensus is not proof. Demonstrating forced mutation and artificial selection resulting in microevolution in a highly controlled, cultivated environment does not constitute proof of macroevolution/speciation--which is the real point of contention.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Honestly the debate is a simple one whether "ID" or YEC. Science classrooms teach science, not religion. Both ID and YEC are not science- they do not have supporting evidence and are not objective, verifiable, testable, or falsifiable and involve appeals to the supernatural.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Ragnar, of course YEC is not the only issue. I just think it is better to take one issue at a time. This way the debate actually goes somewhere. Say for instance that the debate goes well and I make a good case that YEC should not be taught in science class. Then we could handle a separate issue at a separate time...but if I tried to tackle all questions at once, no progress would be made.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It's a good way to start. Get your feet wet, then have another debate on a broader range of the issue.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Well would anyone here want to debate it?

The reason I chose young earth creationism is that it narrows down what I am debating. It is hard to have a debate over ID, God vs. Naturalistic explanations, big bang, evolution, etc. etc. all at once, right? So I just decided to go with a narrow topic, explain that I think it should not be taught in school in science classes.

I gave my basic position and said that pro could basically start with his or her arguments
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
Evolution is a part of Creationism.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Dmot,

Why would it have to be YEC? Why not just ID-based Creationism? Either way, there are life scientists, geologists and paleontologists who hold to YEC/ID who do exactly the same science as Evolutionists--analyzing the same data... The fundamental difference is the scientist's worldview (framework) by which the information is interpreted. Some see God, others see undirected natural forces that began with "everything from nothing".

Your contention that Creationism "is not a science" is naive at best--intellectually dishonest at worst.

| RE: "I say it should not be taught in science classes since it is not science."

Just a suggestion... I would remove (or completely reform) that statement.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Funny, I just used YEC in an evolution debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
DmototsietootsieTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfited. I though con had really good points. Pro didnt have any rebuttal arguments. Con clearly wins.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
DmototsietootsieTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and better arguments.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
DmototsietootsieTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got the point for best conduct (Because Pro forfeited most of his rounds.) And he got the points for convincing arguments because yeah, I agree, one's a scientific theory, and one's not. Children are...impressionable, and if creationism and evolution were created equally in school, the word science would have no meaning.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
DmototsietootsieTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't provide any arguments. Con is clearly the victor.