The Instigator
RandomName
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
simolfc
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Evolution should be taught in public schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
RandomName
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,297 times Debate No: 20729
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

RandomName

Pro

This is my first debate and I would like to learn how they work, so I picked an easily debatable topic.

I believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as a fact in public school science classes. This theorie holds a lot more weight than the idea of a god waving his wand and have people magically appear.
simolfc

Con

First of all I would like to wish good luck to my opponent

A little sucking up never hurt anyone

I would like to make it clear that I do not fundamentally object to the teaching of evolution in public schools, on the contrary, I would encourage it

My objection is to teaching it instead of creationism

My opponent even referred to evolution as a theory so is a debate even necessary?

There is room for both schools of thought within society and schools, evolution does not deny a creator, nor vice versa

Evolution is most probably the answer to how, not to why, a question the greatest minds of our time still cannot answer with any degree of certainty

When asked if he could know anything, Professor Steven Hawking said "I would like to know why we are here; why there is something and not nothing"

The fact of the matter is even the greatest advocates for evolution > creationism cannot provide an answer for this

There is no grounds to say one disproves the other, it doesn't even make sense as an argument

And surely a civilized society should promote free thought within their schools rather than create a dictatorship?

By doing so, you are being as close-minded as you profess that all these elitist bible-bashers are

A child of suitable age and maturity should be allowed to make up their own mind

Evolution, Creationism, or both

Teaching something as fact when the is no hardline evidence either way is, for want of a better word, dumb and as such should be taught as theory
Debate Round No. 1
RandomName

Pro

First off I would like to thank you for accepting my debate, as I mentioned before, this is my first. now onto the argument. I would also like to apologize for waiting till the last minute to post this argument, something came up.

You say that children should be taught both creationism and evolution. I agree to this to an extent. I am speaking of science class's particularly. If they decide to teach creationism in public schools I hope they would create a separate class, perhaps a Creationism/Mythology class.

My opinion is that evolution has a more scientific background than creationism. I am not trying to say I have all the answers and I am sorry if it came across that way, but I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state and if they start teaching creationism in public schools than they might as-well start teaching the moon is made of unicorn skulls and rainbows.

As I stated before, I believe that evolution makes a great deal of sense if you are open minded enough.
simolfc

Con

simolfc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RandomName

Pro

Okay then. I'll just keep talking about why Evolution makes more sense than Creationism.

Creationism is based on the Bible, which says god created two humans, one male, Adam, and one female, Eve, 10,000 years ago and we are all their inbred children. But, we have discovered many civilizations that go years before "The Garden of Eden" was said to have existed.

People don't like the idea of evolution because of our fear of death and that we like to think of ourselves as something special. The idea that we "came from monkeys" is disgusting to some.

People who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun. They thought the world was flat. They thought there was up and there was down and God was in the sky. They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet.

Creationism is much like the, now obsolete, theory of spontaneous generation. This refers to the process in which life would magically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents. The theory states that if there were maggots on rotting meat, the meat must have transformed into said maggots.

The writers of the bible were ill-informed. They did not have the tools and the knowledge to find the truth. Thanks to evolution we now have the tools and knowledge.
simolfc

Con

simolfc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sloppyjoe97 4 years ago
sloppyjoe97
well i bleive that children shoud be tought evolution in school, i really dont bleive that a "god" made earth and the universe, i would beleive that there was a "god" if there was proof of his existance and children shouldnt be forced to learn the ways and beleives of the christians or any other releigon for that matter
Posted by TheRadAdmiral 4 years ago
TheRadAdmiral
Cool debate!
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I feel it is more valid, Man-is-good.

Anyone who believes science is "unbiased" is biased, themselves. No one graduates from school, saying, "let me go and find evidence and see how the universe began." They graduate school having been indoctrinated with Evolution, saying, "let me go find more evidence to support Evolution."

The problem is that if God truly created the universe, then science is not doing its job because modern science teachers "there's no place for God in science." If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then scientists are barking up the wrong tree all because they can't bring themselves to admit the possibility there may be a God.

Now, there are Christians who try and harmonize Evolution with the Bible, but I actually agree with Richard Dawkins that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive. The Bible doesn't just not support Evolution, it flat out teaches that the opposite is true.

The problem is that at the end of the day, any belief about the creation of the world is just that -- a belief. No one was there, so no one can say with exactly certainty that "this is how it happened." Creationists and Evolutionists have the same set of evidence, they just interpret it differently.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Keytar Hero, do you think creationism is just as valid--if not more--than the theory of evolution?
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Sorry, but equating Christianity with magic is a strawman fallacy, and it's just not very intellectually honest. There are great reasons to believe that the miracles put forth in the Bible have a basis in reality. Correctly did Norman Geisler note that those who believe in miracles do so because they have evidence, those who don't believe in miracles refuse to do so because they have a doctrine against it.
Posted by simolfc 4 years ago
simolfc
I would briefly like to respond to the last comment although I am embroiled in the main debate

You say fictive speculation but this is an oxymoron; speculation by it's very nature is not fictitious, it is what it is, speculation

as I have specified, evolution does not disprove a creator and tracing back evolution will only take you so far until you end up, that's right SPECULATING

speculating about stardust falling from space and the like

evolution is no argument vs. a creator and people should stop acting as if it is
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Public schools do teach evolution in schools, but they teach it as a theory, not a proven fact."

A "theory" in the scientific community is the best possible model to explain a phenomena, like the theory of gravitation.

"I am of the belief that if people are truly to make informed decisions, then Evolution and Creationism should both be taught, in an unbiased manner so that children can learn to make informed decisions."

There simply aren't enough hours in the day to teach every fathomable postulation in the classroom, and you would be taking away precious time that could be utilized teaching reality. If you teach Creationism alongside Evolution, then you should teach Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Astrology alongside Astronomy, and The Stork in Sex Ed. Children deserve better than to have to listen to a bunch of fictive speculation.
Posted by RandomName 4 years ago
RandomName
Seriously? If you have this many comments just accept the debate.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
you could never theory or not.. you could never deny that evolution as a historical account..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
It will never be science. it is just a last attempt of desperatoin of religion.. because the more we learn about the world.. the harder and hard it is to trust religion... so they are trying maniplute the word sceince to fit what they are doing. Creationing depends on magic princible you can't depend on magic as a scientic theory..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
RandomNamesimolfcTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeits. Pro also had better arguments, because he showed that creationism doesn't have a scientific backing.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
RandomNamesimolfcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Doulos's ridiculous votebomb, and conduct for the forfeits.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
RandomNamesimolfcTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: shouldnt teach something as a fact if its not