Evolution, religion in public schools
Debate Rounds (5)
Personally, I also believe religion should be taught in school. Specifically the Bible. Even T.H.Huxley(Person who happened to be Agnostic supported teaching Bible in school. He was also an Agnostic.)
First and foremost in the next speech I would ask my opponent to clarify the exact resolution. Need I prove that evolution shout be taught in schools and religion shouldn't? Or something else? Regardless for now I will merely rebutt my opponents claims.
1) Evolution should be taught in schools.
Evolution does not teach Atheism, it is a theory with no bearing on theism or atheism. I would also contend my opponents definition of religion;
Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
As Atheists have only one universal belief, no ceremonies, and no rules, I would argue it is not a religion.
In addition Evolution is not a worldview per se, it is the result of logical observed patterns throughout the globe. The very purpose of school is to educate children, and teaching the theory with the most scientific evidence seems a very reasonable thing to do.
2) Religion shoult not be taught in schools
My opponent actually goes against thier previous words when they advocate for the teaching of religion. They claim that nobody should have worldviews forced upon them, and then go and claim that religion should be taught in school. Not only that, but my opponent seems to only argue for one religion. My opponent points out that a famous biologist wanted religion taught, but has provivded no evidence for this and no reason why this should matter. Why should a school today teach a controversial subject because a scientist from decades ago may or may not have advocated for it?
My contentions do not neccassirly reflect my personal beliefs.
You might be right saying Atheism isn't a religion. Buddhism is a religion, yet, Buddhism is nontheistic.
When I'm talking about religion being taught in school. I'm saying they all should. Like I stated earlier. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc...
As you have stated late in your response, "Why should a school today teach a controversial subject because a scientist from decades ago may or may not have advocated for it?" Why then, should they teach a controversial subject like evolution, specifically Darwinian Evolution? Just because someone doesn't make the income to attend a private school they are enforced to learn about the Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution.... Which in my opinion leads someone to believe in Atheism....
I understand, we were all new at some point. However, I cannot rebut what I do not hear, so try to get it out as soon as possible please.
I am not going to lie to the readers, I had to do some basic research on macroevolution and microevolution to understand what my opponent was trying to say. For the readers who don't know the difference, here is what I found.
Microevolution is below the species level. For example people who migrated to Asia over generations evolving to suffer less damage to sunlight, or Sherpas who have evolved to perform well at high altitudes.
Macroevolution on the other hand is at or above the species level. For example the idea that humans evolved from a predeccsor species, or that different species have a common anscestor.
When my opponent denies macroevolution and accepts microevolution, his contention is basically that species adapt but are not created. This is a logical fallacy. If a species can change and members of it can change independently of other members, which my opponent has accepted saying "I do believe microevolution should be taught because that is a fact." then", then why can a different species not evolve from a previous one?
species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number>
If induviduals develop then at some point it would be logical to categorize them separately, simply because after a while of induvidual development differences will arise.
Some would argue that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion
When you state religion should be taught, can you expand upon that? Do you mean a history of world religion course? A Catholic Social Teaching course? A Buddhist meditations course? What?
Darwinian Evolution is just as controversial as teaching a religion class. I can accept that. However, it is a scientifically sound theory that has no major scientific detractors. The very purpose of school is to educate people, and something without any logical flaws that defines the devolopment of life is a very reasonable thing to teach. In contrast following the Bible literally would allow slavery and remove women's rights, just as a few problems. Following it anagogically leads to moral ambiguity.
And, people must learn about the Big Bang and Evolution whether or not they attend public school. A private school is still required to teach teach science. The following show requirements present in each state:
I do not understand how learning evolution leads to atheism. Is it because it shows an alternate method of creation? But even without evolution there already were alternate ways, namely other religions. If they did not convert to those religions then there is no reason they would leave behind their religion as evolution is compatible with any major religion.
Despite the common claim that evolution is duly supported by the evidence, the facts show otherwise. A growing number of leading scholars (with Ph.D.s from top secular universities) are questioning the merits of Darwin"s theory. For starters, while there is plenty of evidence for microevolution (small changes within a species) there is no compelling evidence for macroevolution (the theory that all of life descended from one common ancestor through random mutation and natural selection).
In science class today, the word "evolution" refers to Darwinian macroevolution, not microevolution. Nevertheless, it is amazing how many people confuse the evidence for microevolution with evidence for macroevolution. After a Newsweek article on evolution, one respondent wrote in to the editor in defense of Darwinism: "They say there"s no evidence for evolution. Yet there it is within my own lifetime. My older sister was one of the patients saved by the new wonder drug penicillin, which probably couldn"t save her now because microbes have evolved to the point that penicillin can"t kill them anymore. That"s fact, not theory"evidence that life forms can change over time."2
Can you spot the confusion? While she offers evidence for microevolution, her example is irrelevant to the grand claims of Darwinism. If, in order to beat the antibiotic, the bacteria had evolved into jellyfish, that would be evidence for Darwin"s theory. But no such transition has ever been observed in either the lab or in the fossil record. Much of the evidence that supposedly supports Darwinian evolution"the Peppered Moths, Darwin"s finches, HIV mutations, and more"only support microevolution. The move from these examples to Darwinism is a blind leap of faith.
And yes, you are correct when I am expanding on religion classes. As I recall back when I went to school, we learned a little about world religions but not in depth. And even with the little education that I got from other religions, it seemed like Christianity was talked about the least. My personal opinion.
JP_Hatecraft forfeited this round.
JP_Hatecraft forfeited this round.
GainWisdom forfeited this round.
JP_Hatecraft forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.