The Instigator
vintinthethird
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Backroads
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism should not be taught in science

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 47996
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

vintinthethird

Pro

First round will be acceptance.
I am arguing that creationism has no place in teaching science.
Backroads

Con

I will argue a defense of creationism being taught specifically as a science rather than a philosophy with reasons to do so in the public school system.
Debate Round No. 1
vintinthethird

Pro

Science in schools is taught as a set of theories to help explain and predict actions in the world. These theories use empirical evidence to support their claims, and it is only when a hypothesis has been continually tested and proved to work that it becomes a scientific theory, and can be taught in schools. Note that all scientists would not say that a theory is necessarily true, it is only incredibly likely to be true, based on the empirical evidence.

In contrast, creationism is a belief which is not backed up by empirical evidence, nor can it be repeatedly tested, so straight away falls short from being a scientific theory. If something is not a scientific theory then it cannot be taught in science. Imagine if the idea that the earth were hollow (or something equally ridiculous) was taught as a actual valid theory. There would be uproar, as such a belief has no base in the evidence required for a scientific theory.

To conclude, although I have no problem with creationism being taught in religious studies, as it is a viewpoint from a position of faith as to why/how the Earth was made, it does not meet the requirements for a scientific theory, and as such, to teach it in science would to reject why science exists, which is to create rules based on testing, not faith.
Backroads

Con

Though evolution is certainly a widely accepted theory that many if most not scientists consider standard, it still remains a theory that does have its missing parts. Creationism, while unable to compete properly in regards to scientific theory, does manage to fill in some gaps with its own theories. (As this debate was set up to discuss the lack of merits in teaching creationism rather than as a evolution vs creationism debate, I propose those theories be set aside in the discussion unless the Prop argument finds them crucial to the argument.) At this time, still some scientists state that some parts of life are better explained by theories other than evolution.

Still remaining is the fact that a fairly significant portion of the population does believe in Creationism and these people are included in the school system. Should their requests for a certain subject be denied? It is, after all, their tax money or, in the case of private schools, their dollars.

Of course, as stated in the Prop position, Creationism could still in this case be taught in school--just not in the science class.

However, adding another theory to the mix taught in science classes will give students much to think about. Children are naturally curious and I would argue, not stupid. In an educational setting that allows free thought (quite common) children can consider information presented and draw their conclusions--and continue to do so for the rest of their learning careers. In that regard, creationism is hardly a threat to the teaching of evolution (or vice versa).
Debate Round No. 2
vintinthethird

Pro

"In an educational setting that allows free thought (quite common) children can consider information presented and draw their conclusions--and continue to do so for the rest of their learning careers. In that regard, creationism is hardly a threat to the teaching of evolution (or vice versa)."

This is the only bit I could find in your argument that makes a case for teaching creationism in Science. However, as you yourself said, this could also be taught in philosophy, not in Science.

Teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory goes completely against the principles of science. Children would be learning that faith-based evidence is perfectly adequate for the formation of a scientific theory, when it clearly isn't. As to the idea that children would be able to draw their own conclusions, if you are continually told something is true by respected and trusted individuals such as your teachers, chances are that is what your are going to believe.
Backroads

Con

According to your original debate challenge, this debate is in regards to whether or not creationism should not be taught in science. As Creationism is often considered in the popular sense, yes, it would make more sense in a philosophy class. But there are scientists who assume Creationism as true and continue to apply scientific principles about it--logically speaking, no miracle is magically assumed. Thus, creationism in a less spiritual sense could be taught as yet another theory, giving another option for students to consider and select. Though I myself am a happy believer of evolution, I feel we may possibly be doing students a disservice by being overly selective of what they are exposed to. You seem to propose that trust matters more than a fair look at all evidence, that students will be more likely to pick whatever they are taught. This is, in many sense, quite true, but it also puts evolution as just another story the teacher tells. Do students believe in evolution because they selected it after looking at evidence, or because a trusted teacher told them about it? A fair look at both evolution and creationism will provide opportunity for students to think for themselves rather than putting all trust in a teacher.
Debate Round No. 3
vintinthethird

Pro

The idea of giving children a fair look is a valid point, but I believe that this can happen by teaching creationism in philosophy instead. This would keep the distinction between science and religion clear, as one uses evidence and one is completely faith-based. Teaching creationism in science would give children the wrong idea of what evidence is. Creationism is not a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested or proved in any (scientific) way. if we teach creationism in science, we may as well teach every creation story from every belief, as they have just as much scientific evidence as creationism.

If we teach creationism in science, we will be bringing up a generation of scientists who have the completely wrong idea of proof and evidence. As such, many ludicrous false theories could be "proved" to be true based on the understanding of evidence we have taught these people. This is of course a bit extreme, but I think it proves how damaging teaching non-science in science could be.
Backroads

Con

Creationism, as some scientists embrace it, does involve scientific principles beyond its spiritual/philosophical core. While picking and choosing theories may be necessary by school policy and educational core, ideally a school wanting to teach students how to think would teach scientific thinking rather than one specific theory over another, making the evolution vs creationism a mute point. If supported scientific thinking, rather than evolution, creationism, or whatever in specifics, was taught, we'd likely have a stronger foundation in scientific thinking.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Backroads 3 years ago
Backroads
I'd like to take a moment and personally thank vintin for hosting this debate. A great topic I enjoyed discussing.
Posted by kjreichmann 3 years ago
kjreichmann
Good luck men! I hope this debate goes well!
No votes have been placed for this debate.