The Instigator
arthur.pichou
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Creationism should not be taught in public 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 5 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,527 times Debate No: 31959
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

arthur.pichou

Pro

If we are to accept the most basic assumptions we can make and operate therein (i.e. the universe exists and we can learn about it), then no religion, creation myth, divine theory or other untestable, baseless assertion can be taught as fact in the classroom. Every evidential apologetic has been demolished; moreover, the basal presuppositions of the creationist deny the second basal assumption of empiricism.
Ragnar

Con

Creationism as defined by dictionary.com is "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed" (1). Because members of religions believing in creation are common, to not teach this word in public schools would risk handicapping students. Therefore creation has a place in English language classes.

Further the hypothesis of creation has influenced many important people throughout the history of the world, be that as it may as a part of their religions. For example; the great explorer Christopher Columbus was a devote believer in creation (2), leaning on his faith rather than empirical sense lead him to the Americas thus his primary legacy in history. The fact the wars have been fought over not just greed, but ideology is further proof of its impact on the world. Therefore creation has a place in history classes.

Creation is an interesting concept, and an interesting concept is the basic criteria for what belongs in philosophy classes. Therefore creation has a place in philosophy classes.

Sources:
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
arthur.pichou

Pro

The creation idea, in relation to religion, can be brought up as a part of historical culture, a metaphysical idea, or a device in literature; however, this does not address the argument which was put forth. The argument is that creationism should not be taught in public schools.

Creationism is the religious doctrine taught as fact, not a tiny piece of historical background to a navigator's odyssey. Creationism as religious doctrine, asserted to be absolute truth, has not been addressed; therefore the argument stands.
This does not mean that creation as an idea cannot be mentioned, even in biology classrooms; for example, a teacher might show why certain creationist claims are wrong in order to develop critical thinking skills in her students.
Ragnar

Con

"The argument is that creationism should not be taught in public schools." -arthur.pichou

To teach is to inform, such is the role of teachers. The question under consideration is of teaching, not brainwashing or otherwise. Very few things are taught in public schools as absolute fact even within science, for most are merely the current means by which we understand the world. To argue that creationism should not be taught in public schools, because it is a religious doctrine that some assert as absolute truth, would be to commit a Irrelevant Conclusion fallacy (1). If it can be taught without being asserted as an absolute fact, than it has a valid place being taught in several classes.

While most pieces of creationism shall likely remain at the hypothesis stage, a central one is currently a well accepted by the current scientific community. Father Georges Lema"tre's Big Bang Theory went directly against the scientific belief of his time (2), yet is now a cornerstone to our scientific understanding of the universe. Atheist dislike of the theory, caused it to actually be named such by Sir Fred Hoyle as an insult against it (3). The theory remains highly untestable, but much evidence points to it regardless of it originating from a religious belief that the universe was created instead of having always existed. Due to actions of multiple catholic popes, the the big bang theory is now a religious doctrine. Without need to debate the value of religion, the big bang theory is a piece of religion tied by many with creation itself, but should remain in science class at public schools for the foreseeable future.

As even the opponent against creationism in public schools has agreed it has a firm place in public schools (unless teachers bringing up the subject in several classes, does not mean to inform them of it?), this debate likely does not warrant three more rounds. While he has stated "Creationism is the religious doctrine taught as fact," if creation must be taught as fact is a separate issue, from if it should be taught at all within public schools as is the current subject.

Sources:
(1) http://onegoodmove.org...
(2) http://www.pbs.org...
(3) http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
arthur.pichou

Pro

arthur.pichou forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Pro has failed to responde.
Debate Round No. 3
arthur.pichou

Pro

arthur.pichou forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Pro has failed to respond.

Hopefully he shall post a closing statement, as I intend to.
Debate Round No. 4
arthur.pichou

Pro

arthur.pichou forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Pro has failed to at any time raise his argument above the fallacy known as an Argument By Assertion, sadly a fallacy famous for claiming God as fact because it says so in the bible. With a little more work he may have even raised it to a Hasty Generalization, had he cited even a single case of religious teachings being misused in school. His only high point was opening with a rhyme, but even then failed to elaborate to what it meant.

While a religious studies class would be an ideal place for religion in public schools, within the confines of this argument Pro has stated it belongs (to a limited extent) in multiple science classes. "This does not mean that creation as an idea cannot be mentioned, even in biology classrooms." Schools teach ideas, bringing an idea into a class is teaching it.

Beyond disproving Pro's limited claims, I have proved several places in school to which it does belong. However the ideal place for such to be fully explored, would be a structured religious studies class, that students choose whether or not to take.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
there are many different settings for how long you want the voting period.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Still new to this site, does voting really go on for 180 god damn days? Why would anyone set it that long!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Long live the FSM!

Anyway as JonMilne stated a religious education class would be the precise place for it. I did not argue for that, to avoid the counter argument of that being tax payer money wasted on such a subjective subject. Instead I linked it into several subjects, in an attempt to imply without stating that it belongs in every subject (which it really doesn't).

Sorry for the tricks. If pro wishes another debate, I could try attacking the his premises rather than the conclusion?
Posted by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
Had Pro argued that Creationism should not be taught as SCIENCE in the public school system, then he would have a considerably stronger argument. However, by saying with a broad brush that it should be public schools that it applies to, Con has pretty much won this debate by not advocating any place for it in the science class and instead giving the rather simple but effective argument that it warrants a place in a philosophy class.

I'd personally say that a "religious education" class would be the exact correct answer, but I feel Con is closer to the mark, so Pro has a hell of a job trying to beat Con now, and this is coming from an Evolution supporting Secular Atheist who despises Creationism and ID and believes it's a fraud.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
arthur.pichouRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
arthur.pichouRagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I wholly agree with the res, FF
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
arthur.pichouRagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
arthur.pichouRagnarTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. Good job con.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
arthur.pichouRagnarTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF