The Instigator
MaxLascombe
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Neuropatrol
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Public schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MaxLascombe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 41853
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

MaxLascombe

Con

Welcome to the debate

I will be debating against creationism being taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.

First round can be either only acceptance or if pro would like to put forward his opening statement he may in round 1.
Neuropatrol

Pro

I accepted your challenge.

But I also would like to include that:

" I'm new here, so all what I say, or how I say may disappoint you, I'm learning

" My native language isn't English, but I'll try my best to put things in the correct and the most easily interpretative way

" And that's it
Debate Round No. 1
MaxLascombe

Con

As has been said, I believe that public schools should not teach creationism alongside evolution in science class. This is for multiple reasons:

1. A science class should stick to the science. Scientists have ample proof that the theory of evolution is right. Although many religious people continue to insist that it is only a theory, just like creationism, and that it should not be given more importance than any other theory, it is actually a fact. There is more proof regarding evolution than there is on gravity. If they still believe that creationism is just as probable as the theory of evolution, they are just stubborn and ignorant of the facts.

2. Creationism is the theory of one religion, but public schools will not only enroll students from that religion as this is against the law. So teaching creationism would actually become immoral as students with different religions will be discriminated as their religion's theory will not be taught. The theory of evolution, however, does not correspond to one certain religious group's beliefs but to scientific fact, and therefore will not bring any problems regarding this.

These are all my arguments for now. I hope my opponent finds very interesting arguments and counter-arguments.

Sources:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.justice.gov...
Neuropatrol

Pro

1. A science class should stick to the science. Scientists have ample proof that the theory of evolution is right. Although many religious people continue to insist that it is only a theory, just like creationism, and that it should not be given more importance than any other theory, it is actually a fact. There is more proof regarding evolution than there is on gravity. If they still believe that creationism is just as probable as the theory of evolution, they are just stubborn and ignorant of the facts.

Not really. Science, by the same way as religion, it’s just a matter of choice. It only depends on your world view. For example, if you are skeptical, if you think with science, if you think like a scientist, you will obviously disapprove creationism for just one reason:

While following the scientific method, there are no proofs of the creationism.

But actually that’s just part of your world view.

A religious person doesn’t necessarily follow the scientific method thinking.

To this religious person, the way of thinking is different; he or she may base his/her thinking in the Holy Bible.

By doing that, it doesn’t matter what fossils indicate. The simple fact of he or she experimenting the world, viewing the world and recognizing himself as part of that world is a proof that God created us.


You may not accept this, but a lot of people do. Not everybody thinks with the same base.

2. Creationism is the theory of one religion, but public schools will not only enroll students from that religion as this is against the law. So teaching creationism would actually become immoral as students with different religions will be discriminated as their religion's theory will not be taught. The theory of evolution, however, does not correspond to one certain religious group's beliefs but to scientific fact, and therefore will not bring any problems regarding this.

You are saying that all religious must accept evolutionism, which is wrong. You are imposing something, and this will create discrimination against those who believe only in creationism.

And also, the United States is a country that was founded in Puritan principles. And here I quote John Adams (about the Constitution of the USA):

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [1]

Not only John Adams, but I’ll also quote George Washington:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." [2]

If there’s some student who doesn’t want to learn creationism and learn evolutionism, or doesn’t want to learn evolutionism but learn creationism, his will should be respected. If he wants neither of them, or both, that’s also ok.

[1]

M. Campbell and J. F. Clarke, in Revolutionary services and civil life of General William Hull, 1848, p. 266.

[2]

G. Washington, "The Writings," pp. 342-343.

Debate Round No. 2
MaxLascombe

Con

I will begin by countering my opponent's arguments:

"Science, by the same way as religion, it’s just a matter of choice."
This is false, as science has absolutely nothing to do with religion. In fact, history has often portrayed these two as opposites entirely. Science can in no way be compared to religion as it is not "just a matter of choice". Science is not an idea, or a way of thinking. The word science's definition is in fact "abranchofknowledgeorstudydealingwithabodyoffactsortruths". This truth does not change from a person to another, depending on his or her beliefs. This truth is the same for everyone. Believing in science or not believing in it is the same as believing or not in the truth.

"To this religious person, the way of thinking is different; he or she may base his/her thinking in the Holy Bible."
With no offense to Christians or to any other religious group, I find that using a book written thousands of years ago (by who knows?) to say that what people today with today's knowledge and technology prove is true is in fact wrong is rather unrealistic.

"By doing that, it doesn’t matter what fossils indicate. The simple fact of he or she experimenting the world, viewing the world and recognizing himself as part of that world is a proof that God created us."
As I think I have already gotten my point across, I will not say too much on this, but can one's religious beliefs really be used to revoke affirmations made by scientists, using concrete proof, such as, as my opponent stated, fossils?

"You are imposing something, and this will create discrimination against those who believe only in creationism."
Although I see where you may have been going with this, as I have already demonstrated, the only thing I would be "imposing" on people is the truth. Although some people that believe in creationism may be denying themselves the facts and truth about evolution, I do not think this information should be denied from others.

Although, the constitution of the USA may have been created for Christian people, times have changed. Back when it was created, 100% of Americans were Christians. Is that still the case? I believe not. It would be completely discriminating to make people of one religion learn another religion's ideas.

I will now proceed to giving my new points:

As I have already said:
1. Public school science classes should stick to the science. My opponent said that certain people who do not "believe" in science would be discriminated if we taught the scientific theory of evolution to them. But isn't the whole point of a science class to teach science and the scientific method of thinking. Is my opponent saying schools should not teach science as this discriminates religious people? Because, in that case, why should math be taught either? I believe that science classes should only teach the "the scientific method thinking" that my opponent talked about.

Those are all my point for this round. I am looking forward to my opponents'.

Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Neuropatrol

Pro

“This is false, as science has absolutely nothing to do with religion. In fact, history has often portrayed these two as opposites entirely.”

Not true. This is a false dichotomy. Actually, religion and science, for a lot of years, walked together.

“Many of the medieval universities in Western Europe were born under the aegis of the Catholic Church, usually as cathedral schools or by papal bull as Studia Generali. In the early medieval period, most new universities were founded from pre-existing schools, usually when these schools were deemed to have become primarily sites of higher education. Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.” [1]

Gregor Mendel, Father of Genetics, was a monk.

Georges Lemaître, known for the Big Bang theory, was a priest.

And actually, there’s a lot of scientists (without religious affiliation) who was funded by religious organizations, in special the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who held names such as: Planck, Bohr, Hess, Alexander Fleming, Schrödinger, Hawking and the list just goes on with a lot of Nobel laureates. [2] [3] [4]

“Science can in no way be compared to religion as it is not "just a matter of choice". Science is not an idea, or a way of thinking. The word science's definition is in fact "abranchofknowledgeorstudydealingwithabodyoffactsortruths". This truth does not change from a person to another, depending on his or her beliefs. This truth is the same for everyone. Believing in science or not believing in it is the same as believing or not in the truth.”

This is false. Science in the terms that we are discussing, such as evolutionism, is not the truth. Science, in this case, is the search for accuracy.

Truth is binary: you either have it, or you don’t. And science doesn’t necessarily is always right.


And science is not something that you can totally trust.

"Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid." [5]

“With no offense to Christians or to any other religious group, I find that using a book written thousands of years ago (by who knows?) to say that what people today with today's knowledge and technology prove is true is in fact wrong is rather unrealistic.

This is a fallacy, just because it is old it doesn’t mean that it is wrong. And people have the freedom to believe in what they want to believe.

As I think I have already gotten my point across, I will not say too much on this, but can one's religious beliefs really be used to revoke affirmations made by scientists, using concrete proof, such as, as my opponent stated, fossils?

Yes, it can. You can’t obligate a religious person to “believe in science”.

“Although I see where you may have been going with this, as I have already demonstrated, the only thing I would be "imposing" on people is the truth. Although some people that believe in creationism may be denying themselves the facts and truth about evolution, I do not think this information should be denied from others.”

You are saying that evolutionism is something that everybody should accept, which isn’t true. Those who want accept it, just do it. Those who don’t want, leave them alone. You may try to debate with them, but once their religion has a answer for everything, this will be hard. So the right thing to do is to respect their opinions and world view.

“Although, the constitution of the USA may have been created for Christian people, times have changed. Back when it was created, 100% of Americans were Christians. Is that still the case? I believe not. It would be completely discriminating to make people of one religion learn another religion's ideas.”

As I said before, who wants to learn creationism, will have the right to do so, but if one does not want to learn it, he should have his will respected. The same would work with evolutionism. The classes wouldn’t be mandatory. If I’m Sikh, I don’t need to learn neither of them, so I just won’t go to the classes.

Is my opponent saying schools should not teach science as this discriminates religious people?

No, since the fact of teaching chemistry for example, doesn’t touch or influence the faith of another person. Most of the holy books (“Bibles”) are free to interpretation, and most of the holy books (let’s cite three: Torah, Christian Bible and Quran) doesn’t even talk about atoms, elements, compounds, etc. But they do talk about the creation of everything, and that’s where their point of view should be respected.

Because, in that case, why should math be taught either? I believe that science classes should only teach the "the scientific method thinking" that my opponent talked about.

Math should be taught (and maybe even mandatory) because math is not science, math is a tool for the sciences. Math is even called the Queen of sciences.

Classes should teach the “scientific method of thinking”, but not that THIS thing is right, and that THAT thing is wrong. This is a choice that only the person can make, to judge what is truth and what is not, in his/her world view.

Sources

[1]

“THE ORIGIN OF UNIVERSTIES,” The University of Texas at Austin, [Online]. Available: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu....

[2]

“Nobel Laureates,” The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [Online]. Available: http://www.casinapioiv.va....

[3]

“Deceased Academicians,” The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [Online]. Available: http://www.casinapioiv.va....

[4]

“Ordinary Academicians,” The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [Online]. Available: http://www.casinapioiv.va....

[5]

“Science has lost its way, at a big cost to humanity,” Los Angeles Times, [Online]. Available: http://www.latimes.com....

Debate Round No. 3
MaxLascombe

Con

I would first like to remind my opponent that the subject we are debating is not whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools science class but whether or not creationism should be taught. We are not saying

I will continue by countering my opponent's arguments:

1. You quoted a text that said that the first universities were opened by religious people or groups. I would like to say that as the quote says that these were "cathedral schools". Being these, they probably did not teach the "scientific method thinking" my opponent stated before, but rather religious ideas/ways. Now, my opponent may say that these cathedral schools have evolved today into schools where science is promoted and taught, but as they have done this they probably also evolved away from religion, rendering your argument invalid.

2. You then explained that many scientists had actually been "funded by religious organizations, in special the Pontifical Academy of Sciences". I must say that about this, I found many different sources saying different things. Some say that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences supports the theory of evolution, which, if you are willing to use this academy as proof that religion and science can coexist alongside one another, renders your previous arguments on why creationism should be taught null. Others say that it supports creationism, making the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' relevance to the fact that scientific ideas were supported by some religious groups rather uncertain. Either way, one of your previous arguments is countered. Also, I would like to add that the scientists you stated that were funded by religious groups were quite modern ones. I find it rather normal that science and religion can 'tolerate' each other in today's civilized society rather than having one (religion) burn people alive for discovering truths they did not like, and although I maybe should have specified, when I said about science and religion that "history has often portrayed these two as opposites entirely", I was not talking about the few exceptions were the two may have walked along the same path.

3. "Science in the terms that we are discussing, such as evolutionism, is not the truth. Science, in this case, is the search for accuracy." I will start by saying that the definition of 'accuracy' is "the condition or quality of being true". This being said, if scientists, as my opponent stated, that "search for accuracy" (aka. the truth) have found that evolution is the most accurate, they are saying it is the 'truest' theory. But "Truth is binary", as my opponent said, and this is why they have accepted evolution as the complete truth, as no other theory has the same amount of proof, which brings me to my next argument...

4. "Truth is binary: you either have it or you don't". This is also the case for proof: you either have it or you don't. Evolution has proof, creationism has none. Why should education give as much importance to a theory that has proof and one that was the creation of one's imagination that has none? It is a good thing our justice system doesn't work like that, as people would get punished with no proof found against them while others would be acquitted from crimes they clearly committed.

My two past points talk more about whether or not evolution is right or wrong, but this is not the debate, which is why I did not spend much time on them. To come back to the debate: why should the scientifically accepted theory be given as much credit as one creationism that is not and has not been proved in any scientific or non-scientific way for that matter?

5. "And science is not something that you can totally trust." I think the better phrasing is 'science is not something that you can trust in its entirety', which is true, but as the parts that you can trust have proved things about our world and proved wrong things that religion asserted, I find that you can trust it more than certain religious ideas that have no proof whatsoever.

6. About the bible you said, "just because it is old it doesn’t mean that it is wrong". I never said this and sorry if that was inferred. What I meant to say was that, as "it is old", I find it to be a less reliable source of information, which is a perfectly valid argument.

7. "You are saying that evolutionism is something that everybody should accept, which isn’t true." Being pro for this debate does not mean that you are going to replace the teaching of the theory of evolution with creationism, but that you will add creationism to the science class curriculum, which would be taught along with evolution. This being said, I will still counter your argument. As you may know from previous science classes you attended, science class is not all about learning facts, but rather, as you have said, learning the "scientific method thinking", to acquire a critical view of the world surrounding you. As evolution is taught, it will not just be giving a class on what evolution is, and plainly say it is the truth, it will give the factual evidence of evolution and show the students why it is the theory that has been accepted by scientists. If creationism was taught, as I have said before, there would be no facts showing why it is a possible theory, as there are no existing facts. The object of a science class is to teach the "scientific method thinking", so why should it do anything other than that? Now, if you are religious and have beliefs that you find revoke the theory of evolution, you are free to think whatever you want.

8. "Classes should teach the “scientific method of thinking”, but not that THIS thing is right, and that THAT thing is wrong." I agree with this totally, but to a certain degree. A class should only say that something is true if it is indisputably right, and same goes for what is wrong. However, saying that two things are just as right when one has ample proof and the other does not is rather absurd. Also, as creationism has nothing to do with science, as I have already said, I do not believe it has a place in public school science classes.

To conclude, I believe only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school science classes as it is the only one that has a minimum of accuracy, and is therefore the most accurate. This accuracy reflects of the "scientific method thinking", and as evolution is supported by scientists, it only should be taught in science class.

Sources:
http://conservation.catholic.org...
http://www.casinapioiv.va...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.catholicculture.org...
Neuropatrol

Pro

Neuropatrol forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MaxLascombe

Con

My opponent having forfeited his round and having already put forward my arguments, I have nothing to add. I hope my opponent shows up for the next round.
Neuropatrol

Pro

Neuropatrol forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
MaxLascombeNeuropatrolTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - FF Both sides made unsubstantiated claims. Also, the debate should have had better definitions of where and age level. As I understand it there is some terrible "scientific" arguments proposed by some creationists. As well, there are some terribly bad arguments by some so called scientists. CON could have worded the debate as "Public schools NOT should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes" since he was instigating the debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MaxLascombeNeuropatrolTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Not grading arguments due to my strong bias on this topic... Conduct however is a clear win by any standard.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
MaxLascombeNeuropatrolTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Forfeit...