The Instigator
tjordan
Pro (for)
Losing
48 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Con (against)
Winning
66 Points

Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught 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  
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: 8/27/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,569 times Debate No: 12842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (23)

 

tjordan

Pro

For something to be scientific, it has to be observable, repeatable, and testable. Evolutionists admit that you can not observe evolution because it is to slow. You definitely can not repeat evolution. And how can you test evolution? Evolution is not fact, it is a religion.
gizmo1650

Con

the resolution "Evolution is not scientific" is clearly false, as it is widely accepted in the scientific community.
Pro approaches this with a false definition of science, in order for an idea to gain scientific validity it has to go through a process called the scientific method. put simply it is as follows:
1. a hypothesis is created
2. the hypothesis is compared with observations
3. after a peer review process, often with many revisions, the hypothesis becomes accepted as theory

clearly evolution fits.
1. it was hypothesized.
2. we compared the results we would expect to see if it were true with what we do see (DNA similarities, genetics, layers of increasingly complex life, breeding, evolution of microbes)
3. Evolution has gone through a peer review process.

as i have demonstrated evolution is an acceptable scientific theory, or at worst a well founded hypothesis, if you wish to challenge its truth you are more than welcome to do so, however at the moment it is the most likely theory in the scientific community.
Debate Round No. 1
tjordan

Pro

First, thank you for accepting my debate.

Based on Wikipedia: the Scientific method "must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". This is exactly what I mean! It must be observable, and testable to be scientific! Evolution is not!

Where did the original matter come from? No one knows for sure, so you have to BELIEVE that evolution is true. I contend that evolution is a religion, not fact as it is portrayed in schools. No other religions are taught in schools, why is this one? You say that it is the most likely theory, but I respectfully disagree. But for this debate it does not really matter who is right. No one was there to see it happen. No one can show evolution to be 100% fact. Yet high school students have to learn all about the "evolution" of man in school. There are laws that require textbooks to be accurate, yet we teach our students that we evolved millions of years ago from single celled organisms. This is NOT observable or testable, therefore it does NOT follow the scientific method!

So based on Con's statement," in order for an idea to gain scientific validity it has to go through a process called the scientific method" evolution is NOT scientific.

SOURCES: http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

"Based on Wikipedia:"
I can't argue with Wikipedia, i can only change it.
even going with you definition, we have gathered data through observation and experiments, and the simplest model we have that best fits with that data is evolution. We do not need to observe it happening (although we have) for it to be a valid scientific theory. Take the big-bang for instance. No one saw it happening, but it is the best way we have to explain the expansion of the universe, so it is scientific.

"Where did the original matter come from?"
what does this have to do with evolution.

" No one can show evolution to be 100% fact."
no one can 100% show gravity to be fact, but is is our best explanation for why we stay on the earth.
Debate Round No. 2
tjordan

Pro

Scientific Method:

"Involving the observation of phenomena"

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence".

"One makes unprejudiced observations about the world"

These are all definitions, or parts of definitions of the scientific method from sources other than wikipedia.

As the first definition states, you have to observe the phenomena. It is not saying you have to observe things that lead you to believe in evolution, or provide evidence for evolution, it says you must observe the phenomena. You can easily observe gravity. You drop a ball and gravity is illustrated. You can not directly observe evolution. You can directly observe adaptation but not evolution, the gaining of information. No one has ever witnessed one species changing into another species. This requires more information. If you say it is because it is to slow, that's fine, but that proves my point. You can not directly observe evolution, therefore it does not follow the scientific method.

Con says, "Take the big-bang for instance. No one saw it happening, but it is the best way we have to explain the expansion of the universe, so it is scientific." First of all there are many things that discredit the big-bag theory, but that is a different debate. But the fact that "it is the best way we have to explain" it, does not mean that it is scientific. If the world trade center blew up on 9/11 and no one saw the plane hit the building, would it be scientific to teach in schools that a fire started in the coffee rooms and burned down the building? NO! Although that may be everyone's best guess as to how it happened, it does not mean that IS what happened. It would be an educated guess, which is what evolution is. No one can see it happening so it is not scientific.

Con says, "Where did the original matter come from? What does this have to do with evolution." It has everything to do with evolution! There has to be a starting point. Evolution can not happen without a starting point. And if there was no one there to see the first living cell evolve, then evolution is not observable and not scientific.

I would again like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. I would also like to thank the audience for reading. Please vote Pro

SOURCES: http://www.answers.com...
http://www.freebase.com...
http://csm.jmu.edu...
gizmo1650

Con

"Involving the observation of phenomena"
the phenomena is the existence of advanced life

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence".
we have gathered evidence, fossil records, genetics, micro-evolution.

"One makes unprejudiced observations about the world"
the observations are un-biased

"As the first definition states, you have to observe the phenomena."
the phenomena is the existence of complex life, evolution is the scientific model to explain this phenomenon.

"You drop a ball and gravity is illustrated."
the phenomena is the ball falling, gravity is the scientific model to explain this, it is possible that the ball fell because invisible pixies pulled it down to confuse our understanding of reality.

"First of all there are many things that discredit the big-bag theory, but that is a different debate."
but it is considered a scientific theory.

"If the world trade center blew up on 9/11 and no one saw the plane hit the building, would it be scientific to teach in schools that a fire started in the coffee rooms and burned down the building?"
that is oddly specific for a science class, but it would be valid to teach that one explanation for the world trade center blowing up was a fire, with explanations on how scientists arrived at that conclusion.

"Although that may be everyone's best guess as to how it happened, it does not mean that IS what happened."
All of science is an educated guess. There is a reason that the highest an idea can reach in science is the status of theory, science never claims absolute knowledge.

Pro:Where did the original matter come from?
Con:What does this have to do with evolution.
Pro:There has to be a starting point.
evolution is a theory explaining how simple organisms can grow in complexity, the origin of the first organism is called abiogenesis.

vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 4tunatecookie 6 years ago
4tunatecookie
Tjordan, while I agree that people should give you credit for better sources, please stop trying to fish for sympathetic comments/votes. The fact still remains that this was a poorly thought out debate on both sides. The votes really don't matter when the sustenance is missing.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
@ juvanya
no one can have multiple acounts
Posted by tjordan 6 years ago
tjordan
Ok everyone, if you think CON won the debate then ok, but I do not understand how he gets the points for sources? Maybe mine were not the best, but CON used none. If you gave CON the points for sources then could you explain why?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The was a weak debate on both sides, but Con had a slight edge. Con should have pressed the point that nothing in science is 100% certain, so if that standard were applied there would be no science taught at all. "Prediction" in evolution means that when new data is uncovered, like a newly discovered fossil or a new method of analyzing the DNA of living animals, the data agrees with the the theory. For example, if a new animal species suddenly appeared without precursors, that would be evidence contradicting evolution and supporting creationism or some other theory.

The vote bombing is unjustified and very poor behavior. There were no conduct violations by either side and no serious S&G errors by either side.
Posted by juvanya 6 years ago
juvanya
Theres not much evidence to say those are his accounts. There is a lot more evidence those accounts are multis of each other though.
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Neither side did well, but CON edged the debate. And when I say "edged", I mean barely edged.

PRO, it's true that something scientific must be testable (and thus in that sense observable), but it need not have to be directly observable in akin to seeing an animal with your naked eyes. Evolution describes a process, and to visually observe an abstract principle would be ludicrous. Rather, we can INFER that evolution is true via other observations which PRO has mentioned (DNA, mutations, etc.). The Big Bang is outside the scope of evolution, and irrelevant in that sense.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
i cant have more than one voting account.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Ahh, I see how this worked out. Con made those two other accounts and voted for himself. This debate is off by 21 Points.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Also, someone made two accounts for vote bombing.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
See what I mean Jordan? Debate.org is full of vote bombers when it comes to this kind of things. It is obvious that your opponent does not deserve ALL 7 Points.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tjordangizmo1650Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "I can't argue with Wikipedia, i can only change it." gizm1650 wins debate
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
tjordangizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
tjordangizmo1650Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tjordan 6 years ago
tjordan
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:23 
Vote Placed by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:23 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
tjordangizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by presentlyunnamed 6 years ago
presentlyunnamed
tjordangizmo1650Tied
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:07