The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Statesman
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Evolution SHOULD be taught in public 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,512 times Debate No: 2823
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (12)

 

blond_guy

Pro

Despite of many people's religious beliefs, the theory of evolution is one of the most advanced in science. If you won't teach evolution because it might contradict someone's religious beliefs then you shouldn't have sexual education either where they teach you how to practice safe sex.

Unlike what many religious people say, evolution is not "just" a theory. A theory is the most advanced understanding of something you can have in science after a law. Before something becomes a law, it is first, just a theory. There's lots of evidence pointing towards the theory of evolution, therefore, kids should be taught to keep an open mind and think for themselves on the possibility that evolution is real.
Statesman

Con

First off, you make an argument that if we should stop teaching evolution we should also stop teaching sex education. This argument rest on two things. One, is that we should teach sex education in schools. We should not. Sex education is something that should be taught to kids by their parents. Secondly, it makes an analogy between evolution and sex education. You forget that sex education is fact and that evolution is not. You say that "a theory is the most advanced understanding of something you can have in science after a law." That is true but it doesn't make a theory a law. Your analogy between evolution (theory) and sex education (law) doesn't hold up. You try to tie them together by saying that "if you won't teach evolution because it might contradict someone's religious beliefs then you shouldn't have sexual education either." The question isn't whether or not something contradicts someone else's religious beliefs it is whether or not what's being taught is true. Your say in your second paragraph that "there's lots of evidence pointing towards the theory of evolution, therefore kids should be taught to keep an open mind and think for themselves on the possibility that evolution is real." There's also alot of evidence against evolution and for creationism so by your logic we should also teach kids creationism and to think for themselves on the possibility that GOD is real and creationism is the way the world was made.

Evidence against evolution and for creationism.
1.Believing that there is an eternal GOD who has always been takes a great deal a faith. (I would never try to PROVE to anyone that GOD exists) However, once one takes that leap of faith creationism is completely logical. Evolution takes the same huge leap of faith. Something cannot just pop up out of nothing, therefore something had to be there before the world began to start the evolutionary process. In order to believe in evolution you have to just accept that something was there that started the evolutionary process. It's the same leap of faith required for creationism. However, unlike creationism evolution isn't logical even after you take this leap of faith.
When was the last time you threw a bunch of buildings block up in the air and into each other and the randomly fell into a castle? Or even one wall of a castle?
http://emporium.turnpike.net...
http://www.ideacenter.org...
http://www.exchangedlife.com...
These websites give many evidences that point towards creationism and away from evolution. The bottom line is however, like I said earlier it is impossible to prove creationism. All one can do is submit evidences for it. What I have showed you though is that it is equally impossible to prove evolution. If anything evolution is more of a leap than creationism. So what should we teach in public schools? Neither. In public schools children should be taught the FACTS of things. The LAWS of things. Not theories, and not religion. That duty should be up to the parents. It is way beyond time that teachers stopped wasting education funds teaching kids their own bias, whatever it may be, and started teaching the FACTS.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

"In public schools children should be taught the FACTS of things. The LAWS of things. Not theories, and not religion."

Well I know more than anyone that religion is taught in schools. Because the #1 thing on my mind is that homework I have on Greek Mythology and the other one I have where I have to read a bunch of laws in the Torah. So if religion is taught, evolution should be taught to. Some people believe in God and others in science.

And in science class they also taught us the difference between a theory and a speculation.

The belief in a God is a speculation, Evolution is a theory.

Here's the difference: A speculation cannot be proven right nor wrong. Christians at once thought that paradise was up in the sky and that there was hell in the "underworld". Notice this was when they thought the earth was flat. But then scientific discoveries were made to prove it wrong and Christians gave it an excuse such as "Well it's an imaginative paradise up there!" or "We didn't mean it was literally up in the sky" or they just sentenced the scientists to death.

Evolution however, is a theory.
"Evidence against evolution."
NO SUCH THING!
Einstein said "There is not a number of statements that can prove me right, but one alone can prove me wrong".
Evolution hasn't been proved wrong, all evidence found today agrees with evolution, however no evidence agrees with religion. Religion keeps being questioned by scientists and religious people just keep on making, for lack of a better word, excuses.
Statesman

Con

I never said that religion wasn't taught in schools. In fact I said that religion WAS taught in schools but it should NOT be. Thank you for backing up my point with your opening paragraph. You then go off talking about the difference between speculation and theory. I'm glad that you can tell the difference, but in this case it's irrelevent. You cannot prove evolution right as I pointed out in my last argument. In order to do that you would have to have been there when the world began and you would have to convince the other person that you were there. It's impossible to prove it. Which by your standards makes it a speculation not a theory. It takes a leap of faith to accept evolution just like it does any other religion. Evolution is a religion. It's just a new kind of religion that instead of having GOD as it's ultimate creator and therefore authority, it places natural selection, survival of the fittest, and random chance as it's creator and authority. You go on to say that there are no evidences against evolution. I'm guessing you didn't read the three links I provided. If you had you would know that there is tons and tons of evidence against evolution. Whether you think that there are stronger evidences for evolution is not the point. The point is that there are very strong evidences against evolution and screaming "THERE'S NO SUCH THING" as you did in your last paragraph, doesn't make the FACT that there are evidences against it go away. I can scream "There's no such thing as evolutionists" but I very much doubt that you just suddenly disappeared. I like how instead of trying to refute the evidence on those websites you resort to giving me a quote about Einstein and proving him right or wrong. Again, I'm not trying to prove anything except that you cannot prove evolution. Consequently, Einstein believed in intelligent design. Just not a personal GOD. You did not give any evidence that evolution could be proven. You did not have an answer to the evidences I put forth against evolution. What you DID do was compare evolution to greek mythology in your first paragraph by saying that "so if religion is taught then evolution should be taught too. Some people believe in GOD and others in science." Which actually strengthens my argument that evolution is a religion just like creationism is. Again I say that none of these should be taught in school. Just the FACTS. Let the parents teach religion at home.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

Well I disagree on your view that schools shouldn't teach religion nor evolution. You can't count on parents to teach their kids this stuff. I go to highschool and if I ask someone what the evolution theory is they won't be able to describe it accurately or they won't even mention the name Darwin in their explanation. And that's because we haven't learned about evolution yet (I'm a freshman). However, we have learned about many religions and their origins, we've learned things our parents didn't tell us. Your proposition is like the one in Communist countries where they like to keep people ignorant. Then every time a citizen disagrees with a politician he will scream "GOD!" or "EVOLUTION!", and the citizen will find himself incorrect simply because he doesn't know what the politician means. You can't count on the parents to teach them everything. Many parents don't have the time to teach their kids what they now learn in school for an entire semester. And if the parents fail then when the kid grows up he won't know either and he won't be able to tell his/her kids and so on, until the elites that have the time to educate their kids just become way more intelligent than the masses. What you propose will make it even EASIER than it already is now to kick the lower class people.
Statesman

Con

See your still working with the assumption that evolution is proven fact and extremely important to learn. That hasn't been decided that's what we're debating. When was the last time you saw questions about evolution on a application for a job? When was the last time you heard evolution as a major issue in a political debate? But yet you say "the citizen will find himself incorrect simply because he doesn't know what the politician means." If we were debating whether or not economics (fact) history (fact) or government (fact) should be taught in school then you would have a point there. But we're talking about evolution (theory) which has nothing to do with job applications or political debates. You also say that my proposition is like one in communists countries where they like to keep people ignorant. Actually in communists countries they indocrinate kids in school with what government and teachers want the kids to learn, which is more like what your proposing by teaching evolution/religion in school. Also, as far as keeping people ignorant; what ever happened to picking up a book on your own and reading it? Is your generation completely imcapable of teaching themselves? Do you have to wait for a teacher in school to tell you to study something before you'll look into it? I know alot of people your age and I really don't think that's the case. Teaching evolution/religion in schools does NOT make paople ignorant. It leaves them the oppurtunity to study these things on their own and keep an open mind about all religions away from the bias of teachers. You still did not refute the evidence I put forth against evolution. You still did not refute the argument I put forth describing how evolution is actually a religion. You still did not give good reasons why religion should not be taught in schools. Evolution/religion should not be taught in public school. Instead we should be spending the money currently used for these programs to better teach facts. Facts that are going to matter in a job application. Facts that are going to matter in political debates.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
I'm surprised it's the 21st Century already and schools are still teaching fairy tales over science
Posted by simmyjaye 9 years ago
simmyjaye
A great title for a debate but not a great debate.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Con is objectively wrong in almost every aspect of his argument, bringing up complete untruths (Einstein) uses juvenile examples that have been debunked more times than I can count (definition of theory), and has a generally poor grasp of evolution in general (probability argument). He also commits many fallacies in argument (begging the question).

However, Pro could have done a better job defending himself, he did not really propose an argument and conceded/ignored many points that Con made.

Con won this debate cold.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by out_n_proud_HINDU 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by calguy85 9 years ago
calguy85
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Out_and_Proud 9 years ago
Out_and_Proud
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RonPaul08 9 years ago
RonPaul08
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jlma_ad 9 years ago
jlma_ad
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
blond_guyStatesmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30