The Instigator
tfjnow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jack.Jameswood1
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Jack.Jameswood1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 67683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

tfjnow

Pro

Evolution is promoted as the means of how life arose on this planet. Other points of view are suppressed as being unscientific since they support the possibility of a source other than matter for life.

Creationism and Intelligent Design point towards a source of intelligence in the form of a Creator as the source of life. There is evidence that supports the logic of adopting this point of view.

There is however, no real good evidence to support the assumption that life "evolved" through undirected means using only the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

The fossil record does not show the slight innumerable steps that Darwin claimed were necessary to create living forms. Dinosaurs for example, appear fully formed in the fossil record with no transitional forms. Where are the transitional fossils to show how dinosaurs "evolved" through slight innumerable changes? All we see are fully formed dinosaur with complex mechanisms fully formed like eyes, digestive systems, limbs, skeletal systems, nervous systems etc.

This is pretty consistent across the board for all fossils. We pretty much find fully formed complex fossils instead of slight, innumerable successive variations leading to a life form. So why should we accept evolution as science when science requires evidence to support its claims and evolution really has much more claim than evidence?

Seems to me that students should be taught oppositional points of view and then be permitted to form their own opinions. If evolution feels secure and can prove itself, then this should not pose as a challenge.

If ID or Creationism can provide evidence to prove its points why not allow it?

After all, isn't education about providing all of the options and then promoting clear thinking to produce better thinking people? Or is education more like indoctrination whereby you are only given one choice and must accept it or fail? Is evolution that insecure in that it can not allow any other view than its narrow definition of materialist naturalism?

Isn't science about promoting views that have the best evidence? However, as heretofore pointed out evolution really isn't supported by good fossil evidence. Heck, if anything, the fossil evidence points more towards creation than evolution where living things appear fully formed and complex rather than through discrete material steps. This points to creation not evolution.

There is more of course but let me stop here and allow a response. Other issues can be addressed in other rounds. The main point however is that education should be wide and inclusive to promote the most sound conclusions not narrow and exclusive which promotes narrow-minded prejudice and less developed people.

Therefore, allow for competing views to be considered side by side and permit the student to choose whichever makes the most sense to them. Doing so promotes clearer thinking about science and life. Not doing so prohibits thinking and promotes a dogmatic claim that appears to be avoiding debate because of its vulnerabilities not its proof.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

I accept. BOP is 100% pro’s, so con’s case rests on debunking major assertions presented by my opponent. However, as a good sportsman, I also plan to provide logical reasons and facts to explain why my opponent position is not tenable in a school system.

Fundamentally, I choose this debate because Pro’s argument is not about evolution and creation or even just religious views of creation; rather let’s look at what the debate resolution actually is…

To restate the actual argument, Pro holds that…

DIFFERING VIEWS of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools


Now that that is clear I want to provide standard, universally accepted definitions of terms used by Pro including differing and views.

Differing
1. to be unlike, dissimilar, or distinct in nature or qualities (often followedby from):

The two writers differ greatly in their perceptions of the world.

2. to disagree in opinion, belief, etc.; be at variance; disagree (oftenfollowed by with or from):

3. to dispute; quarrel.

View or point of view:

1.
a specified or stated manner of consideration or appraisal; standpoint:

from the point of view of a doctor.

2. an opinion, attitude, or judgment:

He refuses to change his point of view in the matter.

Therefore, for Pro must defend all DIFFERING VIEWS or concede the debate. I will admit this is a semantic based attack but it is also fair. Had Pro wanted to only include creationism and evolution, I would not have accepted that debate, largely because it doesn’t interest me but since Pro’s is arguing for all DIFFERING VIEWS, I accepted.

So here is a hypothetical science class and here are DIFFERING VIEWS on the origin of life. Pro must either defend them all as valid or concede the debate since it contradicts the debate itself. Assuming that high school class are roughly 60 minutes long, here are thirty DIFFERING VIEWS on the origin story. Each would have two minutes, equal time to explain their position.

1. Christian god created universe
2. Muslim god created the universe
3. Jewish god created the universe
4. A pedophile named Kevin created the universe
5. Satan created universe by penetrating god anal 12,264 times on a Tuesday after in 1953
6. Ra created the universe
7. The devil killed god creating the universe
8. Adam and Eve’s bestial third-way with a talking snake from Fargo North Dakota create it
9. No one created the universe, beginning and ending only exist in our minds
10. George R.R. Martin is a time-traveler who wrote the Bible but stole Game of Thrones from Shakespeare
11. Two lions 69ing 983 years ago created the universe by peeing on a black hole
12. I created God and God created the illusion of his own origin
13. We live in a computer simulation
14. We are a computer simulation and the origin of our species cannot be known
15. Aliens created humans according to Scientologists
16. Two lesbian goddesses creating the universe from scissoring for two and a half millennia on the sun
17. I do not believe other people have the right to believe in the origin story
18. I am god when I wake up the universe is created every morning
19. Walt Disney created the universe
20. We are all living in Hitler’s wet dream
21. We are all robot programed to believe in origin stories
22. Hippies contaminated the water supply of the world 2,000 years ago and we’ve been tripping ever sense
23. We are all ghosts
24. The origin story is government propaganda
25. The origin story was created by pedophile priest who liked tugjobs
26. People who believe in anything but the Mormon creation story should be thrown to bears while Randy Newman plays Bach’s 8th symphony just as the white foam in Ronald McDonald’s bubbles and he jacks off like an ape in front of the hambugler
27. Christian invented the creation story in the middle ages to drink the blood of jewish children and they continue to perpetuate the fraud because of the Italian spice trade
28. I should have the write to burn any books and kill anyone who believes, does not believe, or anything in between when it comes to the origin of life
29. The Chinese created the universe but haven’t talked about it for a while
30. Stan Lee created the origin story

According to Pro’s position this is valid because it gives everyone equal time to explain their particular view of the origin of life. Therefore, in the next round, pro needs to defend every single position, explain why they are all equally valid truth claims, and explain why this preferable to what I makes most sense: allowing experts with PHDs respected in these field write textbooks that are peer-reviewed or go through a similar process, as exists today. I think this is much more sensible that allowing everyone to vent DIFFERING VIEWS about the origin of life.

Debate Round No. 1
tfjnow

Pro

This is not a response that qualifies as valid. It is what is known as a red herring. That is, it creates a distraction to throw one off the trail so to speak. A pedophile named Kevin as cause for the universe and the other unscientific and illogical assumptions are hardly worth consideration in a bar in an argument between 2 inebriated morons let alone as entries into this debate.

Someone advancing these views as worthy of debate would obviously have some issues that need addressed by a psychiatrist as quickly as tenable and have no place in the discussion or debate at hand.

The views offered are frivolous explanations and demonstrate the ramblings of an over active and immature imagination rather than valid points of view.

The debate was clearly framed as one discussing why or why not should the two most valid points of view to evolution's "it done it all by itself" paradigm as the cause of the universe and life, which is to say Creation or Intelligent Design (ID), should be excluded from the educational curriculum based on the existing scientific evidence.

Personally, I prefer Creation but feel that ID also advances valid points based on scientific evidence but does not provide an alternative to evolution itself. Whereas, Creation is up front with the fact that the accepted paradigm for the origin of life is God, a supernatural being. Science does not always point to material causes as the only existing causes of phenomena as in the case of quantum physics, mathematical equations and the laws of logic. ID uses scientific evidence to substantiate its POV but does not defer to God as a Creator. I do. Nevertheless, ID has been advanced in the past and has gained ground in recent years as a valid point of view on the issues of origins of life.

Since, neither of the last aforementioned two are included in the curriculum and both can advance scientific evidence that can be used to substantiate their claims, the debate is based on scientific evidence to corroborate their claims to be included in the curriculum versus scientific evidence to support the claims of evolution as a component of the educational curriculum. Science must be used not silly frivolous arguments that are the musings of an individual with an obviously disturbed imagination.

After all, this debate is about our educational system being objective and science based, not about silly, frivolous fantasies that obviously have no science behind them.

Two factors must be taken into consideration.

One, no one was present at our origins so all evidence must be historical in nature. That is to say, where does the evidence point to after consideration of the evidence vs. the claims? No one can substantially claim victory in such a debate since no one was present. However, we can examine the available evidence and based on analogy determine where it points.

No one however can actually claim definitive proof since no one was obviously present at the beginning. We can however scientifically agree that the universe did have a beginning whether it be the "Big Bang" or God and speculate based on supporting available scientific evidence as to what that cause may have been. And we can agree that anything with a beginning must have had a cause. Therefore the debate refers to evidence that supports one's cause over the other competing point of view.

Two, evidence must be scientific in nature and not based on the bible, one's religious or philosophical points of view such as that of atheism. The conclusions may point to a religion but the evidence used can not and must be scientific in nature.(Of course, some may claim atheism believes in nothing which would therefore eliminate debate since one cannot debate on nothing and also eliminate evolution since evolution is a set of beliefs as well for the same reasons stated above, i.e., no one was present at the origin of life). One can point to God or Big Bangs as possible solutions but the scientific evidence should corroborate the assumption.

If a debater is willing to move forward based on those assumptions then I think we can have an intelligent discussion. If not, then I am afraid frivolous, unscientific arguments from disturbed individuals will not be accepted as a substitute and disqualify him or her based on the fact that one must secure their point of view with scientific evidence since this is after all a debate about science in the curriculum, is it not?
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

Unfortunately, Pro did not frame the debate proposition as a debate over whether as a bifurcated debate on the merits of creationism or evolution. That is an entirely different debate and is not the one agreed by Con. The debate proposition is Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools


Whatever implicit assumptions or intended meaning Pro desired is irrelevant. However, Pro seems like a genuine sincere person, so I will move away from the more ridiculous aspects of last round and focus on the issue of creation, but again full BOP is on Pro to defend DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME IN SCHOOLS.


My opponent brought up an interesting point about God and uncertainty, why is it invalid to propose that the Universe is expressed in circular rather than linear notions of time without beginning and end.


Question I want Pro to Answer. One—universe without beginning or end:

Buddhists believe in circular dimensions of time, please explain why this is invalid? Did you not say that schools should present all sides, and theoretical models in quantum physics support this model, so again please explain why this very sophisticated form of creation should not be presented in school.


Question I want Pro to Answer. Devil as creator of God

In the early medieval period, Catholic sectarian groups believed that unlike the more orthodox sects of Christianity, the primary cause of the universe was the devil. The devil that created God and God created the universe. There remain texts and groups that support this idea. Again, provide reason why this should be excluded or included into school.


Question I want Pro to Answer. Scientologist version of life or Alien-related creation of human life

My opponent says that my comments last round were immature and unsophisticated, but he only dealt with the most ridiculous aspects. So please, after answering questions one and two, tell me why it would be invalid or valid or include the Scientologist narrative of creation, which involves aliens and volcanoes and so on.


Question I want Pro to Answer. Question of Creation Loyalties:

Muslims might agree with creationism but they should definitely object that that he was Jesus in human form. Therefore, how should school resolve this dilemma, should the Muslim view that creation came from God but only Muhammad was the real prophet. Would this fine to present it this way.

Debate Round No. 2
tfjnow

Pro

I specifically stated in the first post:

"If ID or Creationism can provide evidence to prove its points why not allow it?"

I specified those 2 views because it is well accepted that Creationism and Intelligent Design are the 2 major counter points to evolution as can be witnessed in the available literature which presents scientific reasons for their points of view. If the debater would like a list of websites and literature regarding a Creationist and Intelligent Design perspective to validate that statement, I can provide him with such.

How much literature does Buddhism and Scientology provide to scientifically validate its points of view? How popular or distributed are these points of view? My guess is not very much. However, the issue raised with these views will be covered below.

On the other hand, if the debater is going to bring up every minuscule and absurd view that could possibly exist, why not throw all views out and let the student choose for themselves? Why should only one point of view, that of evolution be taught in the schools? In other words, what scientific evidence gives evolution the edge over all other views? And I am not referring to opinion nor consensus of an isolated group here but evidence.

That is, where are the transitional fossils that demonstrate the claim of Darwin that animal life evolved through innumerable, slight, successive modifications over long periods of time? After all, if this model is to be taught over all others, and claims that empirical materialism is the only scientific paradigm acceptable, then please advance the empirical material evidence to corroborate the claim.

Otherwise, I can see no reason why the major oppositional claim, Creationism or Intelligent Design, should not be permitted to advance their scientific points of view in the educational systems and allow students to decide based on the evidence they would provide, beginning with the fossil record as well.

As far as minor claims such as the directed panspermia claims which evolutionists have also advanced and referred to with your Scientology question, there are a number of problems with this model that would declassify it as scientific.

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for it. We have not even determined that there are aliens, let alone that they implanted life here. So how can something that doesn't even have a shred of evidence be considered scientific. Science is after all based on evidence is it not? Or least evidence pointing towards a conclusion. With no evidence for alien life, how can one claim that they implanted life here? You need evidence (not belief in) of aliens to start with.

Secondly, even if there were aliens (which has never yet been proven), how did they arise themselves? To claim that aliens somehow implanted life on this planet simply transfers the problem of origins outside of this planet to some other unknown position in the universe. The problem of origin still remains unanswered. It was simply transferred somewhere else. Not an evidence based answer to the origins issue simply a transfer to another location.

So, no I would say that directed panspermia or any of its off shoots should not be taught in schools other than as a minor suggested possibility. It should also be acknowledged that it has no evidence in the form of aliens to support its basic hypothesis.

Other issues also exist for this theory such as the massive issues with space travel and distance for directed panspermia as well as the survival of bacteria on meteorites in the panspermia (undirected version) claims. In short, there is no point in discussing theories with no evidence to support their claims.

On the Buddhist view. If they have scientific explanations for their point of view that are worthy of consideration, I see no issue with that being presented as well. Again as a minor advance since it really doesn't address the question of origins with any degree of completeness. The issue was origins, Creationism and/or ID versus evolution not every minor ancillary possible claim. Creationism has more than ample evidence to support its claims, historical validity and includes perspectives on the geological issues and dating issues and others origin related issues as well.

Again, for completeness if the minor claims needed to be covered, they could be done in a class or two or a chapter in a book. No need to beat dead horses or minuscule claims. After all, historically the case for a Creator has been around practically since man began to write whereas Scientology and space men as well as evolution are relative new comers.

What has the devil as the Creator of God got to do with presenting science in the educational curriculum? Again, this is a red herring that serves as a distraction from the issue originally presented and needs no answer. This is not an issue that needs addressed in a science class or course. One can debate such an issue in a philosophy class perhaps if desired.

As far as the Muslim view goes, again a non-issue. As mentioned in my second post, there would be no sectarian evidence presented. There would simply be a presentation of the evidence of a Creator or the claims of Creationism vs. the it done it all by itself claims of the evolution model. That is, created by a supernatural being or created itself with regards to the question of origin. No specific denomination nor religious perspective needs to be advanced to address the claim of Creator vs. No Creator points of view.

The Christian vs. Muslim view is another issue entirely and again could be considered a red herring in the issue at hand. BTW, your view on the Muslim approach to Jesus is flawed and inaccurate but that would be another issue as I stated entirely.

May I remind the debater to stay on point and stop taking this issue in different directions and off point. The issue at hand as stated in my original debate posture is why does evolution have to be the only point of view included in the science curriculum when Creationism and Intelligent Design can supply current and past science based evidence to support their points of view on origins that a Creator or Intelligent Designer would be a necessary consideration of the origins issue?

An additional issue would be that evolution, which claims to be the only view worthy of consideration in the classroom, also needs to advance empirical material evidence (Since they claim that only naturalism or empirical materialism can qualify as science) to support its claims such as the transitional fossils which support its claim that all animal life was generated by innumerable, slight, successive modifications over time to produce the varied kinds of species.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. More importantly, Con would like to Pro for taking the reasonable position and agreeing that Con’s position was right. In Round 2 and Round 3, Pro choose not to defend the position that DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME.

It appears that over the course of the debate, Pro came to see the validity in Con’s argument.

Simple logic demonstrates why Con won the debate:

First, Pro’s position is:

DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME

Second, [Scientology’s Xenu the Alien Origin of Life story/The Flying Spaghetti Monster Origin of Life Story/Kevin the Pedophile Origin of Life Story] are all examples of DIFFERING VIEW(s) OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Pro not does support this DIFFERING VIEWS

Therefore, Pro’s position is DIFFERING VIEWS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME

Con wins due to Pro’s lack of support for original proposition.

Although Con is not obligated to make further addition, here three VIEW(s) that Con believes do not deserve to be taught or discussed in school, and also insert support for this position based on Pro’s own arguments.

Here are the three: Kevin the Pedophile Origin of Life Story, Scientology’s Xenu (or Alien) origin story, and finally the Flying Spaghetti Monster Origin Story.

Kevin The Pedophile [This is Kevin]

Pro failed to defend the particularly stupid DIFFERING VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, specifically that

“A pedophile named Kevin as cause for the universe.”

Pro notes this point of view:

“unscientific and illogical assumptions are hardly worth consideration in a bar in an argument between 2 inebriated morons let alone as entries into this debate.”[1]

Exactly, that is why NOT ALL differing views should be given equal time. Pro endorses Con’s position wholeheartedly.

Scientology’s Origin Story. [One depiction of Xenu]

Pro also agree with Con that scientologist based explanation. Here is what Pro said,

[“First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for it. We have not even determined that there are aliens, let alone that they implanted life here. So how can something that doesn't even have a shred of evidence be considered scientific. Science is after all based on evidence is it not? Or least evidence pointing towards a conclusion. With no evidence for alien life, how can one claim that they implanted life here? You need evidence (not belief in) of aliens to start with.”][2]

Con’s personal position too is against unscientific, crackpot ideas since the inevitable result would hinder legitimate learning and likely prove counterproductive. However, despite Pro dismantling his own proposition, he ridiculed Scientology’s origin story without considering the possible reasons few own about the origin of life. According to Scientology’s doctrinal beliefs, the reason a lay person is because:

“The story of Xenu is covered in OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to advanced members who have undergone many hours of auditing and reached the state of Clear followed by Operating Thetan levels 1 and 2.”

So, even though Pro’s position is that Con is right, Pro failed to consider other explanation for lack of evidence like only advanced members are allowed to see the evidence. But let’s imagine the opposite what if Pro had defended the position DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME, which would mean classroom discussing the life of an Alien named Xenu that lived 75 million years ago and ruled an intergalactic confederacy.

Pastafarianism



Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster Origin Story, another DIFFERING VIEW Con and Pro believe would not advance education in any real way. However, voters should consider a “what-if:” had Pro defended the original proposition then here is what would be given equal time in school. This Q and A below comes from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster beliefs section.

Q: How do Pastafarians believe our world was created?
A: We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.[3]

Bonus section:

Here is another origin story that I came across searching the internet. Here are their beliefs. Based on the original proposition that all DIFFERING VIEWS should be GIVEN EQUAL TIME, this satirical account of the universe would be included in every classroom in America. Thankfully, my guess is that Pro would agree with Con that this is ridiculous and should not be considered as serious. Con agrees.

We, the Last Thursdayists, followers of Last Thursdayism, members of The Church of Last Thursday, believe:

  • that the universe was created on Thursday, and will expire on Thursday.
  • that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself.
  • that you will be rewarded or punished when this universe expires based on your actions here.
  • that left-handedness is a sinful temptation.
  • that everyone but you was placed here and pre-programmed to act as parts of your test environment.
  • that everyone but you knows this.



[1] istfjnow. "http://www.debate.org...; debate.org . January 4, 2015 .

[2] istfjnow. "http://www.debate.org...; debate.org . January 4, 2015 .

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@o0jeannie0o
You may wish to refine your vote RFD a little. It seemed a bit lacking in conduct and sources. However, I have lost faith in most people's ability to even read a debate, so your vote remains of higher quality than most.

I suspect sources are given a touch lightly, so they only showed up in the final round, when they could no longer be refuted.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
I would like to reply to pro using their own statement on Scientology : First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for it [creationism]. We have not even determined that there [is a god], let alone that they implanted life here. So how can something that doesn't even have a shred of evidence be considered scientific. Science is after all based on evidence is it not? Or least evidence pointing towards a conclusion. With no evidence for [god], how can one claim that they implanted life here? You need evidence (not belief in) of [god] to start with.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
No one is taking your debate because there is no real debate. Creationism and ID have both been shown to be void of any real foundation in court and as such are not permitted in schools. The controversy only exists in the minds of Creationists who can't get a grip on reality.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
If I have the view that all life came from spirits and lightning, would that be given equal time in schools?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
tfjnowJack.Jameswood1Tied
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: Con wins, No refute by pro to why, better arguments, and had sources other then the mind. I would like to reply to pro using their own statement on Scientology (i will comment as well): First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for it [Christianity's creationism]. We have not even determined that there [is a god], let alone that they implanted life here. So how can something that doesn't even have a shred of evidence be considered scientific. Science is after all based on evidence is it not? Or least evidence pointing towards a conclusion. With no evidence for [god], how can one claim that they implanted life here? You need evidence (not belief in) of [god] to start with.
Vote Placed by RobertMcclureSmith 2 years ago
RobertMcclureSmith
tfjnowJack.Jameswood1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 3 was very funny. I will explain why I am giving points to Con. First, Pro did not stick to the original proposition and instead tried to debate about what he intended to say. Con gets points for providing a more convincing argument, meaning semantics. Second I am giving points to Con for providing pictures and footnotes. Pro should have worded the debate proposition better.