The Instigator
TheConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
happypancakeeater
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Evolution science is a religion and should be taught as one along side creation science.

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: 3/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 3337
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

TheConservative

Pro

The topic explains my stance perfectly Evolution is a religion and should be taught to our children as one, along side the other explanations as to why we are here.
happypancakeeater

Con

Evolution has absolutely nothing do do with religion. Religion is by definition an explanation of the metaphysical based at least partially on a leap of faith. The theory of evolution is based on empirical observation and doesn't have anything to do with the metaphysical. Comparing evolution to religion is as ludicrous as comparing calculus to philosophy.
Debate Round No. 1
TheConservative

Pro

First of all thanks for accepting this debate best of luck,

First I will look at my opponents claims;

"Religion is by definition an explanation of the metaphysical based at least partially on a leap of faith."

- Actually according to every defenition I could find:

1. "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around moral claims"

2. "A strong belief in a power that control human destiny."

3. "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community."

- So dose Evolution fit into these definitions? absolutely

Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.
happypancakeeater

Con

"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

dictionary.com

-this definition is inherently better because it addresses the philosophical aspects of religion.

"It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring."

-according to this logic, the dinosaurs never existed because we didn't see them. Evidence of microevolution is present all arounds us in the form of variations between animals in different locations. Evidence of macro-evolution
is present in the form of fossil evidence.

-in contrast with science, which is the study of the observable, religion is the study or belief in the unobservable, e.g. "the soul"
Debate Round No. 2
TheConservative

Pro

TheConservative forfeited this round.
happypancakeeater

Con

As a side note, creation science is an oxymoron if it's in reference to the idea that a supernatural being created the earth.
Debate Round No. 3
TheConservative

Pro

TheConservative forfeited this round.
happypancakeeater

Con

There is clearly documented fossil evidence of micro-evolution, so it isn't really a leap of faith to believe in macro-evolution.

You can't claim that evolution is comparatively unlikely when using creationism. Creationism is by definition belief in something that is naturally impossible.

This being said, it is clear that evolution is the only theory that has a sound basis in empirical evidence, while creationism has nothing to do with science.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
as kleptin said, this was a rather weak debate. both sides need to work on a few things
1) logical reasoning: you had a little, but you didnt include much of it in the debate
2) evidence: the only thing cited was a definition. assume the judges have no prior knowlege on the topic, use facts to help make your case
3) persuasion: the goal in debate is to convince the judge to vote for you. in other words you have to persuade the judge. walk them through your logic, put it in terms anyone can understand.
once you guys improve these skills youll have much better debates.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
neither side uses the first round well
pro, if your going to contest cons definition, cite your sources. it makes them (and you) more credible, and your opponent less so. your explanation of why scientists can only observe the present misses a key fact, things (fossils in the case of extint species and backround radiation from the big bang) are leftover from when those events occured.
con, thanks for citing your source
pro, NEVER forfit a round, at least type something, even a "i dont have time to write an argument so ill take care of it next round" or maybe "im almost out of time so ill post this round in the comment section". anythings better then forfiting.
con, you dont use either the 3rd or 4th round very well. try to focus more on persuasion, expessially in the last round
because pros case never really can to fruition, and because he forfited 2 rounds, con wins.
Posted by Cinammon1 9 years ago
Cinammon1
Kleptin, maybe if u payed attention u could have seen that pro posted his debate as a comment. I guess you were too busy trying to critique with an obvious lack of understanding.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
1. Pro's definitions of religion are the most broad, handpicked by himself to be more applicable to debate.

Dictionary.com's first definition for religion emphasizes a supernatural being as do the first two definitions for Merriam-Webster.

Please do not handpick definitions, it is dishonest and a waste of time.

2. Those broad definitions would reduce ALL science to religion. That makes the entire debate rigged.

3. Pro forfeited half of his responses and only
comment-responded one of them.

***

Con's arguments were unclear. He did not make a distinction between inductive and deductive proof, nor did he bring up examples in which the unobservable can be observed or deduced in other means (gravitational forces, etc.)

My vote ends up with Con although I found this to be a weak debate :(
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
I cannot believe this....It said 25minutes so I typed out my argument and I didn't make the cut anyway here is my argument you can use it for round 4

"According to this logic, the dinosaurs never existed because we didn't see them."
- Wrong you can find evidence of dinosaurs and make the conclusion they existed, what they ate, and their size. Nothing else.

"in contrast with science, which is the study of the observable, religion is the study or belief in the unobservable, e.g. "the soul"

- Exactly tell me how you can "observe" the missing links?

While organisms do change through time, this quality of life is driven by a complex cellular machinery. To assume that the sophisticated systems within the cell could have arisen by pure chance requires a tremendous amount of faith in statistical improbability. Our world has many features that testify to the existence of an intelligent designer. God's handiwork is readily evident in nature, and therefore, it may indeed require less faith to believe in God than the possibility that complex structures could simply develop by themselves.
Posted by happypancakeeater 9 years ago
happypancakeeater
don't worry about it
don't worry about it
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
I can't believe I missed the time. I will be here for the 3rd round I apologize.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 Tameric 9 years ago
Tameric
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 Cinammon1 9 years ago
Cinammon1
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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 HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
TheConservativehappypancakeeaterTied
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