The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Creationism should not be taught in schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,334 times Debate No: 20065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Creationism is blatantly false, it has no proof attached to it, and is simply a way for fundamentalist religious people to inject their dogma into the scientific community.


I will accept this debate, looks like fun.

While my personal belief is that the subject of origins should be left out of our educational system, I will attempt to refute Pro's claims that: A) Creationism is blatantly false. B) Has no proof attached to it, and C) is simply a way for the fundamentalists to inject their dogma into the scientific community.

In refutation, my position will be that A) The lack of evidence supporting (macro) evolution is far too great for evolution to be taught as a proven fact. B) Much of what is taught as proof for (macro) evolution in our schools has been proven false. C) Teaching students a theory that have not been proven as fact is indoctrination, and thus immoral. And D) teaching creationism alongside evolution (regarding origins), will give students a well-rounded education, allowing them to be open-minded, providing a healthy atmosphere in the scientific community of objective minds.

Definition of macro evolution:
"Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups."

I await my opponents arguments! Here's to a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Now I will begin refuting my opponent's counter-arguments. On a side-note, I also wish to have a fun and civil debate.

The first argument of my opponent's was, A, "The lack of evidence supporting macro-evolution is far too great to be taught as fact." There is actually quite a large amount of evidence supporting macro-evolution. Just look at modern-day humans.

Coccyx: There is evidence to suggest that the coccyx was once the base for a tail in humans. And yet we have no tails.

Wisdom teeth: Early humans ate a lot of plants, and they needed to eat enough of them in one day to get all the nutrients that were needed. We had a third set of molars to make the mouth more productive. This was quite essential as early humans could not efficiently digest cellulose. Over time, our diets, courtesy of evolution, changed, and our mouths became smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Now, save for a select few human populations, almost all humans develop wisdom teeth. Now they usually just serve as a very painful thing to remove.(I would know.)

My opponent's second argument, B, was that much of macro-evolution has been proven false. While some parts of macro-evolution have not been completely proven, can you please tell me a theory that has more evidence? It is important to remember that, even though evolution is not perfect, it is the best theory we have.

The third argument was, C, that teaching students something that was not a proven, was indoctrination, and thus immoral. It's not indoctrination if said theory has large amounts of evidence supporting it and is accepted by most major scientific institutions worldwide. You want to talk about indoctrination, you talk about all the children turned into extremist Christians or Muslims by the spewing nonsense of their elders.

The final argument, D, was that teaching creationism and evolution along-side each other would give students a well-rounded education. That would be true in a perfect world, but let's say that the teacher in question is a fundamentalist Christian. He/she may just neglect to mention evolution every once in a while. You have to take the human factor into account whenever discussing education.

I look forward to my opponent's counter-arguments, and I am sure that this debate will be very good.


I thank my opponent for a swift reply!

I would first like to tell the audience that I am not arguing that creationism should be taught in place of evolutionism. But that creationism should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution.

I will begin by giving evidence to support my claims, then give refutations of Pros refutations. (Lol)

Claim A: I. Lack of transitional forms.

According to Darwinian evolution, life started out as a simple, single-celled organism, and then evolved over roughly 3.5 billion years into the enormous range of life we see today. Along the way, there would have to be millions, even billions of transitional forms, that is, species evolving new functions and biological structures through beneficial mutations. We would expect that throughout the entire lifespan of life on this planet, there should be at the very least thousands of examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The problem is: there are few, if any examples of transitional forms at all. Even the examples of transitional forms given by evolutionists are hotly disputed. In most cases, between creationists and evolutionists, and in some cases, amongst evolutionists.

II. Weak evidence that beneficial mutations were the engine of macro evolution.

It is common knowledge amongst geneticists that mutations are inherently harmful. Mutations are mistakes made in the DNA code while it is replicated. The effect is that information in genes are lost, causing the gene to either become useless, or dysfunctional.


I challenge my opponent to provide evidence of a beneficial mutation. Keep in mind what a mutation actually is, and that a stellar example of a beneficial mutation would be a mutation that actually resulted in a new function.

However, even if my opponent can give a legitimate example of one, or even two beneficial examples that resulted in new functions, this still would not account for the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. And if the theory of Darwinian evolution were true, then we should be seeing mutations that result in new functions all the time.

Claim B: My opponent has already given me evidence to support this claim.

My opponent gives two examples of "vestigial organs". The coccyx (tail bone) and wisdom teeth are often cited in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution. Unfortunately, these "vestigial organs" are not vestigial at all.

Tail bone: First of all. My opponent claims that there is "evidence" to suggest that the coccyx was once the base for a tail in humans. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten to tell us what this evidence is, or even give an explanation for why the coccyx is evidence for evolution.

Secondly, the tailbone has a clear function. As this site puts it:

"Since human’s do not contain a tail, the coccyx or tailbone is sometimes referred to as a vestigial structure. However the coccyx has many functions in the human body, such as providing protection, support while sitting, and serving as the location of many attachment sites for ligaments and muscles."


Wisdom teeth: Here my opponent has uses the fallacy: circular reasoning. Meaning that his proof of Darwinian evolution relies on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is true.

In reality, wisdom teeth are more of an example of de-evolution then anything. Essentially, creationism teaches that after sin entered the world, the gene code became prone to corruption, and over time information within the gene code was lost.

a) Romans 8-19-21

However, for those with jaws suitable to hold wisdom teeth, wisdom teeth work just fine, and are beneficial.
Argument C. Teaching students a theory that has not been proved as fact is indoctrination.

My opponent has yet to give any evidence for macro evolution at all. In reality, much of the "evidence" supporting macro evolution is composed nearly entirely of circular reasoning then actual evidence, as my opponent has already proved with his "evidence" for evolution.


Rebuttal A) Already refuted in Claim B.

Rebuttal B) "Can you please tell me a theory that has more evidence?"
In regards to origins? Or theories in general? The observable evidence for creationism and evolution is relatively balanced since one can interpret the information to be supportive of both sides. My opponent's question relies on the pre-supposed assumption that there is more evidence supporting evolution regarding origins then creationism, while not actually giving an example of more evidence leaning towards evolution then creationism.

"While some parts of macro-evolution have not been completely proved..."

Essentially my opponent has already made my case for me. By admitting that macro evolution has not yet been proven as an established fact he supports my case that it is irresponsible for our educational system to teach it as fact.

"It is the best theory we have."

What one considers is a better theory is arbitrary. I consider creationism the best theory as opposed to Darwinian evolution.

Rebuttal C) Once again, my opponent claims that the theory of evolution has"...large amounts of evidence supporting it..."and goes on to say" is accepted by most major scientific institutions...".

First of all, my opponent has once again failed to cite said evidence.

Secondly, he uses the the fallacy of... I don't know the name of it. Basically he claims that evolution must be true because a lot of scientists believe it. There was a time when much of the scientific community believed the world was flat. That does not mean the world was flat. Con must give legitimate evidence that evolution is actually true.

Rebuttal B) This argument only works if we're debating about whether the subject of origins should be addressed in our educational system or not. Obviously bias may occur on both sides, including situations where atheist teachers teach biased against creationism. However, if educational systems insist on teaching about our origins, the only responsible thing to do would be to present both theories.
Debate Round No. 2


TJ2W forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the final round. I extend all arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
I think there are some that are. I will be debating from the position that evolution is taught in our public schools.

My opinion:
If evolution is taught in our schools, then creationism should be taught alongside it.
If evolution is not taught in our schools, then to be fair, creationism should also be ignored.

I personally prefer the second.

Voters: Keep in mind that I am advocating fairness. I think our education should be neither biased towards creationism nor evolution. Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, please keep this in mind. This debate is not about which is true, but about whether each should be taught.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
I'm pretty sure that in public schools Creationism is not taught....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
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: Pro's FF caused him to lose conduct and a chance to respond to Con's arguments/rebuttals. In addition, Pro provided no sources, whereas Con did. Thus, sources also goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
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: Granted, Con actually made a number of mistakes, mistaking "vestigial" to mean without function, for example. However, Pro failed to counter such arguments and as a result--along with his assertions---I painfully give the victory to Con. I also commend Con for his use of sources to prove that the cocytus and the tailbone have functions in the human body...