The Instigator
westernmarch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Res. : Should Creationism be taught along side Evolution?

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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,628 times Debate No: 22677
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

westernmarch

Con

R1 is for acceptance only.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I accept the debate. As per the standard procedure for debates, I shall wait and allow my opponent to put forth his argument before presenting my own.
Debate Round No. 1
westernmarch

Con

Okay.


Time to work.



the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing anew human soul for each individual born.



http://dictionary.reference.com...




Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation
by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and genetic drift.


http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Along side" means where ever Creationism is taught evolution mustion be taught also and the other way around.

Creationism doesn't have a place in a science classroom.


P1a. Creationism doesn't explain facts like Evolution does.

In public classrooms students learn a
bout such theories that will get them where they might need to be.
Creation does give such skills Evolution gives.

Creation has has no science to back it up. I will explain.
  • How did God get to be how he is? Like him exsiting?
  • He had to exsit to create something. So what created him?
  • Where did God get the matter to create the earth and humans?
Thus, teaching a flawed theory in a science class would not be wise.
It is pointless to teach a theory that has no connection with what they are currently learning.


This is all for now.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I firstly wish to refer to the meaning of the debate, and analyse what it means:

Should Creationism be taught along side Evolution?

Should means that this debate is a policy debate: something should occur.

To move onto my opponent's case, I wish to point out something he mentioned.

First, my opponent mentions specifically science classes. However, as the title does not resolve science classes specifically, this is only one aspect of the debate.

Second, my opponent points to the definition of "alongside" meaning in all circumstances: both wherever evolution is taught, evolution should be, and vice versa. I wish to pose that this is unreasonable, as there are many times where evolution is taught, but not in the spirit that is meant of the debate. There are many circumstances in which teaching evolution alongside creationism is flawed. However, these cases are not in the spirit of the debate motion, and the generalisation to "all" would be a squirelling of the motion. It should be interpreted that in the general overview of subjects, rather than all cases, as specifically niche cases would be putting implausible pressure onto a specific person (and a stock issue debate would be dull for all involved). Therefore, it seems legitimate to say that whoever covers the largest subject area where both should be taught (or where only one specifically should be taught) should win the debate.

My opponent's argument holds to the idea that creationism is empirically 'wrong'. However, I hold that this is an irrelevancy to the discussion. I wish to pose a multitude of subjects where the teaching of evolution alongside creationism is not just a good idea, but a necessity.

History

In history discussions, the evolution (pun intended) of creationism is a subject that will be of note. In fact, in any discussion of the evolution of evolution, the impact creationists have had is a necessity. Discussing the problems evolution faced in its history should always include creationists. The impact of creationist William Paley on Darwin was of massive importance. The discussion of Christianity on the censorship of Darwin's work is of massive importance. The modern change creationism has had to gain popularity in society is of massive importance to both creationism and evolution. On the historical grounds, discussion of evolution or creationism requires the other to give a full detail of events.

Science

This seems like another strange one, but in modern biology classes, the discussion of evolution's ideas is currently part of modern courses[1]. Moreover, if we are to fully discuss the scientific theories, then one of the major works that is on the courses of many major universities, such as Oxford University, is Natural Theology by William Paley, who put forth the argument for creationism through observation of the natural world. Science itself involves Paley's work.

Philosophy and Religious Studies

Finally, these two subjects overlap somewhat. Currently on the course of OCR, one of the major topics is religion & science, which requires teaching both evolution and creation alongside each other. This is a major issue among the religious and philosophers: does faith 'trump' science? The limits of science, as per the philosophy of science, according to some, means that faith is the ultimatum. Others argue that faith alone is all that is important. These views should be discussed and contrasted to those of Gould's NOMA and Dawkins' belief in evolution.

To conclude

Epistemically, evolution may or may not be the correct scientific theory with the knowledge we have now. However, we need to take knowledge from history to state how evolution has grown into what it is. Further, we need to realise that modern courses include the teaching of how evolution came into existence. Therefore, the acknowledgement of creationism is a necessity to teach the course with clarity. To conclude, evolution should be taught alongside creationism in the subjects of which either is involved.



1 - OCR exams at GCE level. http://www.ocr.org.uk...
2 - OCR course, http://books.google.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
westernmarch

Con


History

In history discussions, the evolution (pun intended) of creationism is a subject that will be of note. In fact, in any discussion of the evolution of evolution, the impact creationists have had is a necessity. Discussing the problems evolution faced in its history shouldalways include creationists. The impact of creationist William Paley on Darwin was of massive importance. The discussion of Christianity on the censorship of Darwin's work is of massive importance. The modern change creationism has had to gain popularity in society is of massive importance to both creationism and evolution. On the historical grounds, discussion of evolutionor creationism requires the other to give a full detail of events.


That's not teaching creationism. It is the connection between Creationism and Evolution, but isn't Creationism.

Science

This seems like another strange one, but in modern biology classes, the discussion of evolution's ideas is currently part of modern courses[1]. Moreover, if we are to fully discuss the scientific theories, then one of the major works that is on the courses of many major universities, such as Oxford University, is Natural Theology by William Paley, who put forth the argument for creationism through observation of the natural world. Science itself involves Paley's work.


And that involes science that doesn't use science?
I want You to expand on this.

Philosophy and Religious Studies

Finally, these two subjects overlap somewhat. Currently on the course of OCR, one of the major topics is religion & science, which requires teaching both evolution and creation alongside each other. This is a major issue among the religious and philosophers: does faith 'trump' science? The limits of science, as per the philosophy of science, according to some, means that faith is the ultimatum. Others argue that faith alone is all that is important. These views should be discussed and contrasted to those of Gould's NOMA and Dawkins' belief in evolution.


I concede this point.

To conclude

Epistemically, evolution may or may not be the correct scientific theory with the knowledge we have now. However, we need to take knowledge from history to state how evolution has grown into what it is. Further, we need to realise that modern courses include the teaching of how evolution came into existence. Therefore, the acknowledgement of creationism is a necessity to teach the course with clarity. To conclude, evolution should be taught alongside creationism in the subjects of which either is involved.

Evolution did not branch off of Creationism
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Seeing as what most of my opponent stated has been requoting myself, I shall just fisk the debate:

"That's not teaching creationism. It is the connection between Creationism and Evolution, but isn't Creationism."

The link between creationism and evolution is teaching of creationism. However, what I was referring to is Darwinian Evolution compared to the Church creationism, or Paley's creationism. These two ideas clashed in the 19th century, and, in looking at the history of science, this is an incredibly major event. Moreover, one needs an understanding of both creationism and evolution in this circumstance to have an understanding how evolution has been formed into the modern theory. Darwin for one was drastically effected by Paley's Natural Theology, and thought:

"The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation."

Indeed, there are many similarities between Paley and Darwin's work[1], showing clearly that creationism has had a severe impact on Evolution. This is not yet referencing the clashes since times of old between creationist and evolutionist theories.

As my opponent has conceded the Philosophical and Religious Study segment, I shall move on from this and accept it as done and buried.

My opponent states that Natural Theology does not use science. However, of the time of writing, the book is on the university reading list for biology in Oxford, as well as countless other schools. This alone promotes it's scientific value alone. Science does not solely revolve around the scientific method: science has previously been based off of and used observation and abduction to create theories (and in many cases such as cosmology stil does). In the same way, scientific books such as Natural Theology or other works use abductive logic to make conclusions. Whether they are right or not is not important: Primordial Soup Theory was created through science, but we now know it is wrong. That doesn't stop it being science, nor should it stop being taught as one of the older ideas before a major or more important theory.

Also, with my opponent's final point: "Evolution did not branch off of Creationism". As the quote by Darwin (above) showed, evolution came from a background of creationism. The history of pre-evolution was almost always spontaneous creation or creation, and this backdrop is important to recognising the history of evolution.

For these reasons, I state that there are more fields of which evolution and creation should go hand-in-hand than they go separately.



1 - http://en.foursenses.net...;
Debate Round No. 3
westernmarch

Con

I am flooded with other parts of my life.

Pro wins
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Thank you for being prompt with this post. I urge a vote PRO. Also, I suggest to my opponent that he sets out rules in Round One if he wishes to argue about a specific issue. Otherwise ambiguity kicks in and I may not understand exactly what is attempting to be argued.
Debate Round No. 4
westernmarch

Con

Thanks.

Good job.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Thank you. Again, I urge a vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by westernmarch 5 years ago
westernmarch
eh oh well
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Yeah...mention that before posting the challenge or before someone accepts it, not after.
Posted by westernmarch 5 years ago
westernmarch
If I was not clear, Creationism will be taught in Bio and health.
Posted by westernmarch 5 years ago
westernmarch
Creationism is bible-based. I explain later
Posted by boss1592 5 years ago
boss1592
I have a few questions

Firstly, could you better define creationism

Also what class would you want creationism taught as a part of? Science, History, Religious studies?
Posted by westernmarch 5 years ago
westernmarch
Questions go in here
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
westernmarchStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture delivers conduct and arguments. Pro has better spelling and grammar. Pro exclusively used sources in support of arguments. V Bomb justified.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
westernmarchStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Concession.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
westernmarchStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Concession by Con.