The Instigator
TheHistoryProfessor
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Evolution vs creationism /Why is evolution taught in school but creation not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,227 times Debate No: 17531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

TheHistoryProfessor

Con

Evolution is taught in school and creation is frowned upon but there are just as many flaws in evolution as there are in creation.
TheSkeptic

Pro

As either a qualified or potential teacher, I hope my opponent brings something noteworthy to talk about it on this discussion. Frankly, the topic is dull with incompetent pro-creationism arguments so here's to hoping my opponent can prove his weight.

I'm withholding any substantive arguments since none have been provided thus far, but the basic argument I am relying for why evolution is taught in school is because it is the most probable scientific theory accounting for life's diversity. As one would suspect, the debate would probably center at least partially on the scientific plausibility of creationism.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHistoryProfessor

Con

You state that evolution is the most probable scientific theory accounting for life's diversity, what is most probable is not always correct. Science is the knowledge of the material world through observation and experimentation. To this day, there is no way to observe five of the six stages of evolution using the scientific method. There is no reason that either should be taught in science classes if the science doesn't full support on side or the other.
TheSkeptic

Pro

My opponent strings together two arguments together but does little to provide his respective reasoning for any of them. It's imperative that he realizes this debate is two-folded and that it's not only the job of myself to discuss arguments in detail.

"You state that evolution is the most probable scientific theory accounting for life's diversity, what is most probable is not always correct..There is no reason that either should be taught in science classes if the science doesn't full support on side or the other."

Disregarding serious and relevant epistemic concerns about rational acceptance (which I doubt will be brought up by my opponent), a prima facie response is to point out I have not stated nor am I bothered by the possibility of evolution being false. In other words, it is rational to accept evolution as a scientific theory that most likely describes reality. Science never grounds or 'fully supports' one theory given known epistemic limits inherent in empirical observations. I plead of you to bring up any scientific theory that is fully supported by science - I'd argue you can't, because the mere fact of imagining the negation is sufficient.

"To this day, there is no way to observe five of the six stages of evolution using the scientific method."

Either this is too vague or am I ignorant of evolutionary literature (which can be a distinct possibility), but at least one idea these 6 stages you refer to would be the way in which evolution on Earth has been characterized (from the origin of life/first common ancestor to intellegient humans and technology). I'd assume you believe only the last stage (humans and their creation) is 'observable' while the rest are not. This criticism has a glaring problem that I am surprised you are fine with:

Observing need not be manifested in direct sensory perception - we can use various instruments, secondary sources (history?), etc. to observe phenomena in a scientifically reputable fashion. I'm hoping you aren't pigeonholing what it means to observe in the way I have described. If so, it would help if you would be more specific and detailed with your arguments so I don't have to poke into the dark.

There's one last round, use it wisely.
Debate Round No. 2
TheHistoryProfessor

Con

To sum up this debate, evolution nor creation are supported by science. Science tends to rely on evolution as the basis for the creation of everything we know to date, only because creation lies within the realm of religion. Creation is a theory that some scientist can support through there own theories. Darwin explains in his writings that if in the future an organism is discovered that could not have evolved over a long period of time, then his theory should be disregarded (observe the organisms, genes and cells, in or own bodies). Cells are made up of tiny moving parts just as a machines are. if on piece is missing the whole cell cannot function. This means the cell could not have been created by evolution. My debate here is not with evolution and creation and which one is more correct, my argument is that both have major flaws and should not be taught to future generations as one is more probable than the other.

Six different types of evolution: Cosmic evolution (Big Bang), Chemical evolution ( big bang created hydrogen and all other elements on the periodic table formed from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution ( no one has ever seen a star form), Organic evolution (how life started), macro evolution ( species to species evolution), micro evolution ( evolution within a species).

No one has ever proved the first five types of evolution and to teach this theory in school systems because it is the most probable is insulting. As my opponent pointed out that I assume that (humans and their creation) is 'observable'
is false. I believe that both theories are flawed in the eyes of science, so both should be taught in school or neither. Remember what the debate is about, not evolution vs creation but if both are flawed why teach either in schools.
TheSkeptic

Pro

Frankly, my opponent hasn't provdied any considerable muscle in his argument,instead reshasing typical concerns that can be considered dismissive.

"Cells are made up of tiny moving parts just as a machines are. if on piece is missing the whole cell cannot function. This means the cell could not have been created by evolution."

The argument from irreducible complexity, as you've outlined, is silly. We have many examples of exaption[http://en.wikipedia.org...] and even explanations of the ones provided my Michael Behe (the one who coined the term). Simply put, in large part this argument centers on ignoring a significant portion of evolutionary theory. As an analogy to this supposed problem of irreducible complecity, suppose you wonder how it's possible for one to create a stone arch bridge - after all, if you think about how one would place the stones together you would realize it isn't possible as if you even remove one stone the arch would collapse. But if we realize that the construction of such an arch happened above a centering that was later removed, then there is no issue of irreducible complexity.

"Six different types of evolution: Cosmic evolution (Big Bang), Chemical evolution ( big bang created hydrogen and all other elements on the periodic table formed from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution ( no one has ever seen a star form), Organic evolution (how life started), macro evolution ( species to species evolution), micro evolution ( evolution within a species)."

Well I've seen this before. Little to say, the fact that we can't directly percieve the first 5 with our naked senses doesn't mean you have listed examples of scientifically invalid ideas - we have things called scientific instruments. And what's even more alarming is that you equate BIOLOGICAL evolution with evolution of various other kinds, an obvious equivcation of meaning. Shall we the dispute the evolution of my hair styles, or of music genres?

Dissapointing debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Bullish 1 year ago
Bullish
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Open and shut.
Vote Placed by badbob 2 years ago
badbob
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I thought con had slightly better conduct because pro came off as too arrogant.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: TheSkeptic dispelled much of Con's arguments, which betrayed a lack of understanding of both the evolutionary theory and the mechanisms of life in total...Con also did not fulfill his BOP in the debate.
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 3 years ago
ohnoyoulost
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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: TheSkeptic refuted all of Pro's arguments very well.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 3 years ago
thejudgeisgod
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The Skeptic's arguments were superior. His grammar was noticeably better, and he used the most reliable sources. I wish that Aff's arguments were more substantial, and that he didn't write his resolution so vaguely. NEG wins.
Vote Placed by Puck 3 years ago
Puck
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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: Easily refuted Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
TheHistoryProfessorTheSkepticTied
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: Pro convincingly refuted Con's arguments. Pro correctly pointed out the equivocation and the erroneous point on observation. Con never directly responded to Pro's arguments.