The Instigator
TheSaint
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BigSky
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

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...
BigSky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 29816
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

TheSaint

Pro

So, Thank you very much for accepting whomever this is. This resolution comes from Bill Nye the Science guy's controversial comment on whether or not creationism is appropriate for children.
Found here:

Semantic arguments are not allowed, no trolls etc etc.

Also, I would prefer that this debate does not turn into an argument about the truth or lack there of behind creationism. The argument: "Creationism is important because kid's will go do hell without it" is unacceptable.

Definitions:
Creationism: The religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Appropriate: The quality of not being detrimental to overall well being either physically or psychologically.
Children: Having an age below 18.

The first round is only for acceptance.
The third round is for opening arguments
The final round is only for refutation, no new arguments may be created although new evidence may be added to reaffirm previous arguments.

If you have any questions ask them in the comments. This will be my first debate so let's see how it goes.
BigSky

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSaint

Pro

The idea of evolution, simply put is essential for any sort of understanding overall of biology or natural science. The child that may have a natural talent for these practices such as science has lost their opportunity to be a part of that overall occupation due to a complete incompatibility with the philosophy forced upon them at birth. If they choose later to adopt this philosophy that is a different issue, but children, simply do not have that option when their parents force this idea upon them with no facts to refute them. As global populations rise and environmental technologies and more efficient farming techniques are needed as a world we need more scientists, creationism stops the future scientists and intellectuals from ever rising.
Without this driving force behind the scientific community and with such a large percent of the population not believing in evolution is simply becomes inappropriate for children to be taught creationism as it is so detremental to them and society
BigSky

Con

I would like to begin by saying good luck to pro, and that this should be interesting.

Just for the record, I love Bill Nye. Maybe not his views on creationism, but as a scientist I have always thought he was brilliant. Always watched his show as a kid, always have admired him.
Just watched his video, and I'm wondering if he was really tired while he did that video or something because one of his statements was that those who don't believe in evolution can't be engineers. Why? Why can't those who believe in creationism be scientists, and doctors, and authors? My previous two science teachers have been Catholic, and very strong believers in creationism. They understand biology, they understand chemistry, but according my opponent, they are incapable because they believe in creationism. If anything, my family has benefited from our belief in creationism. It gives us something to work for, something to live for.

I anxiously await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSaint

Pro

Other than an Ad Hominum attack on Bill Nye, and a list of personal experiences my opponent has failed to make an argument.

In response to the idea that creationists can be scientists and doctors you are right to an extent but if you want to believe that the world is 7000 years old and created by an all powerful creator it simply is impossible to create valid scientific hypothesis. For example if you want to be an archaeologist then the idea of the fossil record, one of the basic tenants of the field fails to make sense. If you intend to be a microbiologist you have to compensate for evolution of bacteria as they become resistant to new drugs. The belief system simply is not compatible with reality and cuts children off in most fields of science, perhaps not engineering but nevertheless it is an incompatible belief system.

In terms of your own family's experience in creationism you are thinking of religion. I only have to prove that creationism is detrimental which I believe I have.
BigSky

Con

My opponent makes it very clear that if a child cannot be an archaeologist, or a microbiologist, then the theory of creationism is somehow not for the child's well being.

"Other than an Ad Hominem attack on Bill Nye, and a list of personal experiences my opponent has failed to make an argument."

To my opponent, a recognition of Bill Nye's biased opinions is an example of Ad Hominem. I simply pointed out that engineering did not the require a belief in evolution. Which... my opponent agreed with...
"perhaps not engineering but nevertheless it is an incompatible belief system."

My opponents ONLY argument was that creationism is detrimental to a child because it is an incompatible belief system. This argument "could" be made if my opponent proved his theory of evolution, but he didn't, and it remains a theory. I must ask my voters to look at this objectively, my opponent didn't give a valid example of how a belief in creationism could harm their well being.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
If you'd attacked young earth creationism rather than creationism in general, you'd have a theory you could actually disprove in a thousand words or less. ;)
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
"...it's meant to be about the right of a parent to push person ideals onto their children and to what extent is pushing a false theory..."

Problem is you said teaching creationism is "bad" means you have to first prove it's a "false theory" otherwise your argument as no credence. If you want to assume, prima facie, that creationism is false, it would have been better to debate "teaching our kids false things is bad."

Of course even then, I could argue with you because it's quite possible that many things we teach our kids are going to be proved false in the future, particularly when it comes to science. So in that regard, it's not "bad" to teach them false things because, if they are smart, they will see that they are false and try to correct it.
Posted by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Yeah I definitively will.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Hey I'm always on here, challenege me again to another debate, with more characters..
You're an intelligent debater, thanks for the prompt.
Posted by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize just how small 1000 characters really are.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Wish we could have more than a thousand characters... :p
Posted by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Sorry, I posted my argument before I saw this. My original statement was that: "Also, I would prefer that this debate does not turn into an argument about the truth or lack there of behind creationism. The argument: "Creationism is important because kid's will go do hell without it" is unacceptable."

It was part of the initial constraints of the debate.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Let me get something straight before we begin this, you're asking me to debate whether or not this is harmful to the child under the assumption that creationism is a false view? For the sake of our argument? I'm afraid I didn't accept this debate based on those terms. I don't believe that creationism is false, and that's why I believe it is not innappropriate to a child.You have gone against your original statement.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Alright, but remember the burden is proof is shared. You must prove to the voters that a parent encouraging their child to believe in creationism is harmful to their well being. I must prove the opposite, I await your argument.
Posted by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Sorry, dumb mistake on my part bigsky, Round 2 is for opening and final is for rebuttal and no new arguments.

And to kroneckerDelta, this debate is not meant to be about the validity of the theory, it's meant to be about the right of a parent to push person ideals onto their children and to what extent is pushing a false theory (I understand people disagree with this but for the purposes of this debate false) onto their children child inappropriate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
TheSaintBigSkyTied
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: There were two arguments in this debate. First, Pro claimed believing in creationism ruled out scientific professions. Con provided anecdotal evidence that creationist scientists exist. Pro did not dispute this. Second, Pro claimed that they couldn't be very good at some scientific fields because their beliefs contradict reality. However, Pro would first have to show Creationism is false, and he explicitly in his opening wanted to avoid that claim. (In addtiion, his specific comment seemed to target young earth creationism, which believes Earth is less than 10,000yrs old, rather than creationism in general. Creationism, as defined in round one, doesn't conflict with some evolution).
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
TheSaintBigSkyTied
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: In reality this debate is a tie. Neither side presented convincing arguments. However, since I feel Pro had BoP, they failed this by presenting a single argument: teaching creationism would stifle potential scientists. Con attacked this position and seeing as how somewhere around 50% of scientists are theists, I think this attack is valid. Con could have easily won sources as well if they had just presented this statistic. Ultimately, Con won on a technicality of debate.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
TheSaintBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with con before and after this debate. Pro failed to provide any solid evidence that creationism is false or that evolution is true. Pro failed to show that creationism could harm a childs well being. This was an easy vote for con.