The Instigator
dragonscxt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Darris
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Creationism (the basic idea of it) Should be Taught in Schools Alongside Evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
Darris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 907 times Debate No: 39478
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

dragonscxt

Pro

Creationism, or at least the basic principles of it, should be taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution and other common theories about the origins of life such as punctual equilibrium, panspermia, and directed panspermia.

None of them has been proven to be true yet, but all of them are possible, so why only teach students ONE of the theories when you don't know which one is true?

*Keep in mind that creationism is not religious and many creationists can also believe in the theory of evolution. If you didn't know that before challenging me, don't challenge me because you do not know what you're talking about.

I was lucky enough to be in an open-minded school where my Biology teacher taught me all the common theories and left it to myself which one to believe in. Though I ended up believing in Neo-Darwinism (which is what most of you just call "evolution"), I still believe schools should teach the other theories so that future generations will not be ignorant and narrow-minded.
Darris

Con


First of all, evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about the changing of life. Maybe some guy from space made life on earth. After that, however, evolution happened.


None of them has been proven to be true yet, but all of them are possible, so why only teach students ONE of the theories when you don't know which one is true?


That’s just not true. Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the only explanation for the various data that has been found. It is the only idea that has predicted successfully every single time it has been tested.


Example: endogenous retroviruses. When you get a virus, sometimes that virus will replace a bit of your DNA with its own. It’s almost always just a piece of your DNA that did nothing, so it doesn’t affect you, generally. However, since it’s now a part of your DNA, if you have children, you will be able to detect the same viral pattern in their DNA. So, if I made the assumption that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and predicted that we would have the more of the same viral DNA in the same places than, say, humans and rats, I would be able to test that theory. When you look at the DNA of humans, chimpanzees, and rats, you will find that those predictions are 100% verified. If life on earth was created as it is now, then you would expect that the viral patterns in DNA across the species were random and not linkable between different species. That is the opposite of what we find.


In fact, you can even go down the phylogenetic tree and choose any three species. The ones that are closest to each other will share more viral DNA than ones that are farther apart. The probability that this happened by chance is just astronomically slim.


Keep in mind that creationism is not religious


This is what they say, but I don’t believe it. How do you say life was created if you’re not saying it was created by some religious entity? I’m challenging you because I believe that you’re the one who’s mistaken. It’s telling that there are no creationists who aren’t religious.


HOWEVER, I can argue from the position that creationism is not religious, if you like. But, don’t think that that means I won’t say that creationism isn’t science.


That’s the crux of my argument. That creationism is not science. Science makes testable, falsifiable, predictions and then follows through with testing those predictions. Creationism makes no predictions, and certainly not falsifiable ones. It just makes assumptions. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s religious, it’s just not science.



Evolution argues that a species results from nonrandom selection of random mutations. If moths are darker, the birds are less likely to eat them when they’re on darkly colored trees. If you’re a moth and you’re 0.5% darker than your friend, you’re 0.5% more likely to survive. If you do survive, you’re many times more likely to mate and pass that genetic mutation on to your children. Lots of little changes overtime eventually make it so your offspring after 1000 generations looks nothing like you at all.


Creationism argues that “nuh huh”. A scientific theory cannot be one that just disagrees with another one. You have to actually present something. If there is a theory better than evolution, it should be submitted for peer review. But it’s not. It never is. Creationists cry conspiracy, but I’ve never even heard of a creationist paper submitted to a biological journal. Kent Hovind says “peer reviewed, yeah but whose peers?” which might be a valid claim, but … where are the papers that were rejected? They were never submitted. You can’t claim conspiracy when there’s no attempt on your part to get the idea into the scientific arena in the first place.


I look forward to this debate.


Debate Round No. 1
dragonscxt

Pro

You are right, evolution is not about the origins of life, thanks for pointing that out.

*Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the only explanation for the various data that has been found. It is the only idea that has predicted successfully every single time it has been tested.

While it is the only explanation for many things, it cannot explain many things and is flawed. For an example, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, there should be many transitional forms found in the fossil record. However none are found as of yet, though there was one particular fossil, the Archaeopteryx, that people thought was a transitional form. But soon after they changed their minds. One could argue that the fossil record isn't complete and that we've not found all the fossils, but for now Darwin's theory hasn't been proven yet.

*Your example with endogenous retroviruses.

I don't see how this supports the theory of evolution. Note that Darwin's theory of evolution involves natural selection. Your example simply shows that DNA gets passed to your offspring even if it is changed, in which case you wouldn't even need to use this example. It is the same with genetic disorders and other mutations.

*If life on earth was created as it is now, then you would expect that the viral patterns in DNA across the species were random and not linkable between different species. That is the opposite of what we find.

Creationism doesn't mean life was created as it is now. A very common theory of creationism is Old Earth Creationism, which states that after the creation of life, organisms change through mutations or natural selection. Therefore DNA is linkable between different species.

OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS ARE NOT RELIGIOUS AND THEY DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

My question still stands. Why can't other theories be taught in school?
Darris

Con

“My question still stands. Why can't other theories be taught in school?”

I apologize. I should have been clearer. "Alternative" theories (read: unproven theories) should not be taught alongside evolution because they're not science. If you should find/develop a scientific theory that describes the observations and makes predictions better than evolution, by all means, that one should be taught in tandem or instead of evolution. Until that point, however, it would be nonsense to teach it.

"...it cannot explain many things and is flawed."

I'll respond to that with one of my favorite quotes about science.
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful" - George Box
It doesn't matter if it fails to explain a thing. We do the best we can until there's something better, then we do better. Science is an unstoppable march of human knowledge. If you can explain something better than evolution, I invite you to submit a paper on it.

"For an example, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, there should be many transitional forms found in the fossil record. However none are found as of yet, though there was one particular fossil, the Archaeopteryx, that people thought was a transitional form. But soon after they changed their minds. One could argue that the fossil record isn't complete and that we've not found all the fossils, but for now Darwin's theory hasn't been proven yet."

One could also argue that this statement is a prime example for why not to "teach" the "controversy". There is NO controversy in the scientific community. There is NO debate. Con said that he/she attended a school that was open-minded and was taught ‘common’ theories and allowed to decide for himself/herself. Creationism is not a ‘common’ theory in the scientific community. It’s a ridiculous theory with no meat and no evidence.


There are no transitional fossils?
Con has been lied to by his/her "open-minded" teacher.
https://en.wikipedia.org......
That list is only tentative and not anywhere NEAR exhaustive. Transitional fossils are found all the time. I have personally witnessed an argument of whether a fossil was more amphibian or more amniotic (pre-reptile).

It really makes me sad. Con has been robbed of an actual biology education because his/her state has decided that creation 'science' is on par with evolution.
It's a tragedy of science education.
There is no evidence of creationism; in fact there is evidence AGAINST (young-earth [once again, that should have been mentioned]) creationism; endogenous retroviruses.

"I don't see how this supports the theory of evolution"

The theory of evolution is the theory of the development of life on earth over millions of years through means of spontaneous genetic mutation and natural selection. It is the theory that speciation happens from natural selection. Therefore, if I can show that we share offspring-style DNA with another species, it would validate the theory of evolution because that means at one point, there were no humans and chimps, but a common ancestor that divided into both humans and chimps.


"OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS ARE NOT RELIGIOUS AND THEY DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION."

First of all, if Con is going to qualify which type of creationist he/she is, Con should have done it when he/she started the debate, not halfway into it.
If Con’s definition of creationism allows evolution to be true, why is Con arguing that they should be taught alongside each other? If it doesn't contradict evolution, why is Con making arguments against the veracity of evolution? If it doesn't contradict evolution, then the debate should be titled "Creationism Should be Taught".

The creationist argument (assuming old-earth creationism) is "it was magic". Once again there is not a drop of scientific evidence for it.
Since there is no evidence, it should not be taught in the classroom.

Do you believe in God? This is a relevant question.
They all say it's not religious, but they're all religious. It's very convenient.
If it is religious (if I can show that it is), then that's yet another reason why it shouldn't be taught in schools.


Bullet points of this round:
1. If Con (the instigator) doesn't think evolution is false; Con's debate shouldn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Con should have mentioned which type of creationist would be the subject of the debate.
3. There is no evidence for old-earth creationism.
4. Old-earth creationism is not science. It makes neither predictions nor falsifiable claims.
5. There is evidence for evolution. There are transitional fossils.
6. Creationism is religious.
And
7. Religious, unproven, non-science should not be taught in school, let alone in a science classroom.

Debate Round No. 2
dragonscxt

Pro

dragonscxt forfeited this round.
Darris

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
dragonscxt

Pro

dragonscxt forfeited this round.
Darris

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
dragonscxt

Pro

dragonscxt forfeited this round.
Darris

Con

I ask that you vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Darn it, Darris! You stole my next epic win! ;P

Ah well, good luck!
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
I would say a few things. First, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Second, do you mean in science classes? Third, if we define Creationism as: "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...), then I am stumped as to how you can belief in "divine creation" and not be religious.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
dragonscxtDarrisTied
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: Pro loses conduct for forfeits (which also hurt his arguments). As Con argues, Creationism is unscientific and hence shouldn't be taught in science class alongside evolution.