The Instigator
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
youmils03
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,014 times Debate No: 29379
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

tmar19652

Pro

I feel that Evolution, should be valued above creationism in school curriculums.

Terms
1. The First round is for acceptance and clarification only
2. Pro will argue for Evolution to be emphasized in school curriculums, above creationism
3. Con will argue for creationism to be empasized in school curriculums, above evolution
4. No Semantics-No Excessive debate over the meaning of terms
5. Evolution will be defined as:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
6. Creationism will be defined as:Creationismis the beliefthat life on earth all comes from a supernatural being
7. Burden of proof is shared:Both sides have to prove the validity of their respective beliefs.
8. Contesting Terms 1-8 is an automatic forfeit
youmils03

Con

I negate resolved that teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I will now evaluate the Pro's terms:
1. I agree.
2. I agree. Pro can also set up a plan for HOW teaching evolution will be evalued above teaching creationism in schools.
3. I agree. Con can also set up a counter-plan for HOW teaching evolution will NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools.
4. I mostly agree, but definitions and standards are a BIG part of any debate. They will be heavy in my Round 2 speech, but I will try to keep them from being excessive.
5. Each of us can define the terms for ourselves and dispute one another's definitions.
6. See my response to term #5.
7. Yes - evidence is critical for any form of argumentation.
8. I agree, with a few small exceptions that I have listed above.

This is modeled after a Parliamentary round, so plans, counterplans, definitions, burdens, standards, refutations, and evidence are all welcome.

Without further ado, I would like to invite the Pro side to make a case explaining why teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools. As Con, I may interpret the resolution differently and state why the resolution is not true.

Cheers.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Pro


Should schools be able to teach scientific creationism? Should schools teach about evolution? These are some of the questions courts at all levels have had to wrestle with due to the attempts by certain religious groups to stop the teaching of evolution and replace it with teaching from their own religious traditions. Fortunately, the courts consistently reject the intrusion of religion on public school science classes. I feel that evolution should be valued above creationism in school curriculums for a variety of reasons.


First, Evolution can be proven scientifically and it can be observed in fossil records. Evolution can be observed in every creature on the planet, and therefore it should be valued above something that’s evidence comes only from an archaic, scientifically invalid book. Evolution can be seen in humans, and it is a much more reasonable explanation of how the human race came to be (1,2,3).


Second, The United States has a separation of church and state. For children to be forced to learn about creationism, is forcing unfounded religious beliefs upon them, violating this principle. However, to teach a child evolution, is to teach them founded facts that have no religious affiliation whatsoever (4).


Third, courts all over the country have affirmed the importance of evolution in education, often striking don over-emphasis of creationism in education. Here are a few of the cases that show this principle of science over myth.



  • In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution (5).

  • In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator (6).

  • In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class (7).


I will now provide a bulleted plan that would allow evolution to be valued above creationism in school curriculums.



  • Evolution would be taught in all science classes regarding the origin of the species. This would allow the students to learn about science and facts in a class that is supposed to teach science and facts.

  • Creationism could be touched upon in a religious studies class (or possibly philosophy) that would be an elective in Junior High or High school. This way no-one has religious beliefs forced upon them, and creationism would not have to be completely excluded from schools.

  • Through this plan, actual science would be emphasized (evolution), theology would not be forced on students, and it would be on an elective basis only.



Sources:



  1. 1. http://records.viu.ca...

  2. 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

  3. 3. http://listverse.com...

  4. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  5. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  6. 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  7. 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...

youmils03

Con

I negate. Definitions:

evolution - change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species
creationism - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent creator
value above - to esteem something overwhelmingly more than something else (Dictionary.com)
teaching - to give instruction in
schools - public, private, charter, or household-based institutions of education

(Dictionary.com)

Since my opponent does NOT define terms in his/her Round 2 speech, please prefer mine for today's round.

My standard is NET BENEFITS FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS. Evolution and creationism are most contentiously debated in the U.S.; thus we should focus our debate on that country specifically. Since the resolution includes "in schools", it makes sense to look to net benefits for STUDENTS in America. Thus, you should vote for the side that produces the most benefits and fewest costs for students enrolled in schools in the U.S.

I reject my opponent's plan and propose a counter-plan. If you read resolution closely, realize that it indicates preferability. This gives the Con two options: either I can argue that they should be taught with the SAME value OR that creationism should be valued above evolution. My counter-plan is that students be exposed to very basic concepts from each science up until the end of 5th grade. From 6th to 12th grade, students CHOOSE to take evolution OR creationism classes. They can alternate between the two and pick the smart choice for them as to which works with their religion, value system, and schedule. Regardless of which path students opted for, they would be exposed to plenty of science (ex: Physics) and various humanities courses as well (ex: Ancient Studies) Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.

An observation I would like to make is that I do NOT have to prove that Creationism should be taught in PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE classes. My opponent never defines schools, so open up the table to all private and charter schools as well (as in my definition). Creationism is just as much a humanity as it is a science. It should not have to be labeled as a science class in order for my plan to be valid.


The Pro burden is to show that that the benefits of esteeming evolution overwhelmingly more than creationism in schools in the U.S. outweigh the costs for American students. Prefer this burden, as Pro did not mention one.

The Con burden is that the benefits of my plan (equal prioritization to both) outweigh the costs for American students.

Finally, as a brief roadmap for my arguments, I'll be stating the BENEFITS of teaching creationism in schools. As long as my benefits MATCH or OUTWEIGH the benefits of evolution that my opponent extends throughout the debate, the ballot meets the Con's plan requirements and you vote Con.

Contention 1: Creationism is consistent with people's intuitions of a humanities OR science class. Creationism is a theory with qualities from both classes and is tested with the scientific method. The hypothesis it adopts and upon which it relies is that God created 'the heaven and earth...' There has been valuable evidence discovered for the biblical flood. There is a fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. Scientists have also shown that some species could NOT have evolved gradually because of unique chemical or physical make-up. Organs such as the eye are 'irreducibly complex' and could NOT have evolved step-by-step as would be suggested by Darwin. According to Hurst, Darwin's observations fit PERFECTLY with the true biblical view that there was a global Flood, and animals migrated from Ararat to the islands via the neighboring mainland. He also notes that biochemists, astrophysicists, chemists, physiologists, and other scientists ALL endorse the biblical account of creation. If Darwin's theories altogether depend on a particular Creationist premise, then Creationism is the overarching field and should clearly be available to American students.

Contention 2: Creationism is fundamental to a student's learning. Since the implications of creationism are far-reaching, they should be valued at least as highly as those of evolution. Open-mindedness is essential. Belief in science and evolution is NOT a reason for the rejection of the discussion of Creationist theory. According to the University of Washington, 61% of adults (as indicated by a survey) have had a meta-physical experience in their lives that canNOT be explained by existing science. Existing science is NOT a warrant for the validity of a particular concept. One of the great lessons that a school can teach its students is the ability to use their own logic to develop an opinion of the world around them. By valuing creationism as highly as evolution, schools broaden students' knowledge. The goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs. Thus, when analyzing on a net benefits framework, judges should vote for the side that promotes the most education. Seeing that my counter-plan values two theories where as my the one sided plan of my opponent evaluates only one, the Con better creates benefits.

Contention 3: Creationism upholds freedom of religion. Since part of the framework regards American students, and the Constitution mandates the freedom of religion through the Establishment Clause, freedom of religion is a substantial issue in today's debate. Allowing the teaching of evolutionary theory directly undermines a religious doctrine. Impressionable students, young by definition, are more likely to believe these teachings. Mearsheimer notes that "schools must allow for the teaching of all valid doctrines and theories." Since, for centuries, most students (as the vast majority of students go to public schools for K-12 education) have been taught evolutionary concepts without a regard to creationism, there should be a mechanism to restore the balance of the two viewpoints. The way to promote freedom of religion is by offering creationism (an idea that encapsulates various different religions) and valuing it just as highly, if not more highly, as evolution.

I will now make quick refutations to my opponent's points.

Opponent's Contention 1: evolution can be proven scientifically. Cross-apply my first AND second contentions, where I talk about how creationism is the foundation of evolution. All of Darwin's theorires are derived from rudimentary premises from the creationist theory about the beginning of life. Without taking into account these theories, the quality of students's education is compromised, and intutions of science and humanities become less important.

Opponent's Contention 2: the US has a separation of church and state. I'd like to point out that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. That is ridiculous and, as mandated by my 2nd contention, close-minded.

Opponent's Contention 3: Supreme Court cases prove the validity of evolution. The decisions of Supreme Court cases do not reveal net benefits to American students. They are not a unique REASON to value evolution. All of my opponent's Supreme Court cases are about or more than 20 years old, while the debate over creationism has expanded drastically since then. But even if you still REALLY want to look to public/governmental support, I refer you to a poll by the Pew Forum: 64% of people support the idea of teaching creationism, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism. Thus, my opponent loses the public support debate because his/her evidence is archaic.

Thus, I negate.

Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Pro


I will begin by addressing my opponent’s arguments about private and charter schools. 90% of student’s k-12 in the US goes to public schools (Charter schools do receive government funding) and therefore it would seem fair to give public school curriculums 90% of the “weight” of this debate (1).


My opponent put forth a plan where students could pick either a creationism or an evolution path in the upper grades. This path however is invalid because evolution is a valid scientific principle, just as much as chemistry or physics, that all students should learn about, regardless of religion, whereas creationism has absolutely no evidence going for it except for the argument “science can’t explain this one little thing so creationism has to be real” which does not hold water.


Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.”



  • I did say in the comments that you could set your own definitions for evolution and creationism, but you never ran this by me. You agreed in term 3 to argue “Con will argue for creationism to be emphasized in school curriculums, above evolution”, and you have just contested that . This is not a valid course of action as you also agreed in term 8 that “Contesting Terms 1-8 is an automatic forfeit”, which you have just done.


Refutation of Contention 1


You make several arguments in this contention; however, you did not source any of them. While I do agree that there could have been a flood, unless you can show evidence of Noah’s Ark, then there is no evidence of a biblical flood.


In addition, creationism cannot be the overarching field of study until it is proven. Can you prove definitively that a god created some animals outright, no! I can however prove that many animals evolved from other animals.


Refutation of Contention 2


“The goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs”



  • Up to the 1800’s this would have meant that students would learn that blacks are inferior and they should be slaves.

  • Throughout history, this would mean teaching that women are inferior and they should not hold power.

  • Up until Galileo, this would mean teaching students that the universe was centered around the earth.

  • Just because a belief is widely held, does not mean it should be taught in schools (Would you like me to talk about Nazi propaganda schooling?)


“Belief in science and evolution is NOT a reason for the rejection of the discussion of Creationist theory”



  • I never said that creationism should be rejected, but I do not believe that it should be a large part of the school curriculum unless it can be proven to a greater extent than creationism.


“judges should vote for the side that promotes the most education”



  • The Judges should vote for whoever argued their side better, not just for the most education. Just in-case though, I feel that we should extend schooling to 24/7, 365 days a year (Please do not interpret this as being serious), to provide the children with the most education.


Refutation of Contention 3


“Allowing the teaching of evolutionary theory directly undermines a religious doctrine”



  • The teaching that the earth is not the center of the universe undermines religious doctrine, what is your point? Religious doctrine has been proven to be blatantly wrong on hundreds of occasions (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), and therefore this is a moot point


“Since, for centuries, most students (as the vast majority of students go to public schools for K-12 education) have been taught evolutionary concepts without a regard to creationism, there should be a mechanism to restore the balance of the two viewpoints. The way to promote freedom of religion is by offering creationism (an idea that encapsulates various different religions) and valuing it just as highly, if not more highly, as evolution.



  • Why should balance be restored between the two? One has evidence, the other is a myth. I am all for offering creationism in religious studies, or ancient history classes, but since there is no proof, then it should not be valued above evolution.


“I refer you to a poll by the Pew Forum: 64% of people support the idea of teaching creationism, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism. Thus, my opponent loses the public support debate because his/her evidence is archaic.”



  • In Nazi Germany, there was public support for the scape-goating of Jews. Was that the right course of action?

  • In the Middle East, there is overwhelming public opinion that Israel should be obliterated. Is that right?

  • Also you have no source for this, also you are calling my evidence archaic, when 99.99% of evidence for creationism comes from a 2000 year old book?


More Recent Supreme Court Cases:



  1. 1. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005



  • "[W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science…. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (11).



  1. 2. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.-2005



  • Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."(12).



I wish I had more characters, but I still was able to show that Cons argument has much less merit than my own. I would also like to note once again that Con contested term 3-“ Con will argue for creationism to be emphasized in school curriculums, above evolution” by saying “Realize that this is a counter-plan NOT to value ABOVE evolution over creationism, but rather to value them on the SAME level. This is a valid course of action for the Con, as would be it in any Public-Forum type debate.”, which is a clear violation of term 8.


Sources:



  1. 1. http://www.capenet.org...

  2. 2. http://rationalwiki.org...

  3. 3. http://www.discoveringislam.org...

  4. 4. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

  5. 5. http://www.examiner.com...

  6. 6. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

  7. 7. http://atheism.about.com...

  8. 8. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

  9. 9. http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

  10. 10. http://www.scribd.com...

  11. 11. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  12. 12. http://en.wikipedia.org...

youmils03

Con

I negate.

My opponent attacks my counter-plan and says that I must argue that creationism should be valued ABOVE evolution in schools. This is only ONE of the two ways I can negate the resolution today. I can prove that "No, teaching evolution should NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools." if I value them equally.
Even if you do not believe my interpretation of the resolution, refer to my Round 1 speech that responds to my opponent's term #3. I note that Con can also set up a counter-plan for HOW teaching evolution will NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools. I clearly set up a counter-plan in my Round 2 speech. I would imagine that my opponent is coming down so hard on the technics of my counter-plan because he/she is unable to sufficiently respond to its substance. But, I will examine his/her inability to do so very shortly.

My opponent responds to my definition of schools with a questionable fact that 90% of schools are public schools and that we should limit the scope of the debate to JUST public schools. I refuse that limitation on the debate, because it removes the equal access that Pro and Con would have to the ballot otherwise. We should be concerned with schools as a WHOLE, because that adheres most directly to the resolution.

My Contention 1:

My opponent very scarcely responds to my first contention, saying that there is no evidence of Noah's Ark. Theory: In debate, each competitor is expected to carry out contention-level arguments with a reasonable burden of evidence. My opponent requests that I show him/her a piece of evidence that is beyond my implied burden of proof. This violates standards of fairness in today's round, because there is no point in completing a debate if there is an implied, preconceived disadvantage on either of the two sides. Do not extend my opponent's refutations to my first contention, because all they ask for is an excessive amount of evidence and a plea to escape from responding to the substance of the argument. But let's examine my first contention more closely:

I argue that there is a fossil record of intermediate forms between known species, which is evidence of the biblical flood. I also argue that scientists have found holes in the theory of evolution, in that unique chemical or physical make-up has in and of itself disproved its validity. Thirdly, I show that Darwin's observations fit perfectly with the true biblical view of a global Flood. Finally, my opponent fails to uniquely refute my point that biochemists, astrophysicists, chemists, physiologists, and other scientists ALL endorse the biblical account of creation. If my opponent really wants to endorse the theory of evolution, he/she should first realize that without creationism, there IS no evolution. Why would so many scientists endorse the creationist theory if it were not substantiated by evidence? I would like to add that 68% of people agree with the fact that God created humans and guided their development and therefore that creationism is a prerequisite to evolution.

If my opponent is still unhappy with all of the cards that I provide suggesting that evolution has holes and is ultimately supported by creationism, I would like him/her to consider the video that I have included in the sources section of this Round 3 speech. It is endorsed by a man with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

My Contention 2:

My opponent responds to the statement "the goal is to expose students to all widely held beliefs". Let me address each bullet point separately:
1. The idea that blacks are inferior and should be slaves is not a widely held belief. The timeframe of this debate is the present and arguably the future, but it is a logical fallacy for my opponent to use examples from the past to advocate for something in which the conditions of society are vastly different.
2. The idea that women are inferior and should not hold power is not a widely held belief.
3. It was fine for students to learn that the universe was centered around the Earth before Galileo came and proved otherwise. What else would students have learned before this epiphany was released to the public? In other words, how could they have known better?
4. I would argue that widely held beliefs that are in alliance with society's norms SHOULD be taught in schools. Students need to collect information about both sides of an argument before they can make a personal decision for themselves. For example, if a Government class teaches only about the conservative ideology of government, and students are expected to write papers endorsing only the Republican party, this is bad for democracy and limits fairness.

My opponent says that more education does not matter in the scheme of today's debate. Remember that my standard of maximizing net benefits for American students goes completely unrefuted. If students have fair ground to BOTH theories (the evolutionary and creationist theories) via my counter-plan, they will be able to learn more and, as aforementioned, be better educated. This is clearly a benefit to American students, so it should be a voting issue in today's round. My opponent gives no warrant for why my counter-plan of emphasizing BOTH evolution AND creationism does not work in today's debate.

My Contention 3:

My opponent has absolutely no response to this contention whatsoever. He/she gives cards that show where religious doctrine has been undermined but:
1. the sourcing is from "bibblebabble.curbjaw.com" or "atheism.about.com" or "discoveringislam.org", which means that it is bound to be biased and invalid right off the bat.
2. does not explain WHY undermining religious doctrines is not a bad thing.

According to Richlee Bruce, 86% of the world identifies themselves as religious in at least one way. Prioritizing evolution over creationism is an assault on both utilitarianism and net benefits, because freedom of religion is mandated in the Constitution and in societal norms.

I would say that my third contention goes either completely or mostly unrefuted. The main idae is that schools must allow for the teaching of all valid doctrines of theories. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and disadvantageous to subject to students more non-religious, unsubstantiated evolutionary theories than valid, accepted religious norms.

My opponent continues to claim that creationism is a myth but has no evidence for the claim. Remember how I show in my 1st contention a card which says that all Darwinian theories rely on creationist premises. He/she also continues to claim that evolution has evidence, but remember that much of it has holes and that the only cards that he/she has willed to provide in this debate are biased.

My opponent also claims that my 64% statistic does not matter. I will post it in the sources, but the idea is that utilitarianism is a key part of maximizing net benefits. Education systems should be open to what the majority of people support; these are widely respected beliefs that deserve attention in ANY kind of school system, not JUST public schools.

My opponent mentions a Supreme Court case that says that teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes is bad. Remember that it is not my burden to argue that evolution should not be valued above creationism in biology classes. It is not EVEN my burden to argue that evolution should not be valued above creationism in PUBLIC high schools.
We established at the beginning of the debate that the word "schools" is equivocal and ought include not JUST public schools but also private and charter institutions. Furthermore, I do not have to argue that creationism should be taught in science classes. That is an unfair burden that does not grant the Pro and Con sides equal, fair access to the ballot.

Thus, I negate.


http://law2.umkc.edu...
http://www.creationscience.com...; (video)
http://www.nytimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
tmar19652

Pro


To my opponent, you agreed to the terms set forth in round 1 of this debate by accepting the challenge, If you continue to assert that creationism should be valued equally to evolution you forfeit the debate, and I hope the judges will take note of this. If you did not agree with the terms then you should have voiced your opinion in the comments before you accepted the terms by accepting the debate, and they then resorted to an ad-hom in order to justify their choice to violate the terms. Now on to the debate.


First, I never said that the debate should be limited to public schools. I simply stated that because they serve 90% of the students in this country, that their curriculums logically would be given more weight in this debate. I never said that private schools should be completely excluded.


Contention 1 Refutation:


My opponent started their contention 1 by stating that the fossil record supports that there was a flood. No, there may have been a huge flood, and I do not deny that, but there is no proof that that flood was biblical or caused by god. And while my opponent did prove that there possibly was a flood, they did not prove that there was a biblical flood. As that would require something like Noah’s Ark, or evidence of godly intervention.


My opponent then proceeds to propagate a massive logical fallacy. Evolution does not depend on creationism; it simply requires another explanation of how the first life came to be. My opponent argues that because scientists have not explained where the first life came from, that creationism is the only possible explanation. Now this train of thought would be valid if creationism was the only theory on where life came from, but it is not (1) so therefore evolution does not depend upon creationist teachings.


My opponent then argues that because 68% of Americans agree that god created humans that it has to be true. Well, 68% of Americans are obese, so does that make it healthier than being skinny (2). I would also like to remind my opponent that Adolf Hitler won 98.8% of the vote in 1936, did that make him morally, and politically better than anyone else in Germany (3)? There is no logical reason for that many people to believe in the myth of creationism. It also happens that by educational group, the least educated believe in creationism the most, and vice versa.


(http://debate.org...) Graph in Link


Also, my opponent did not link his to video on creationism by a man who’s degree is in mechanical engineering, so obviously he is credible to lecture on this topic. Along with all of their other arguments in this contention being unsourced.


Contention 2 Refutation:


My opponent even refutes their own contention in this argument. They argue that if both theories have a valid base to stand on, then they both should be taught. Evolution has valid evidence going for it as I have shown previously, creationism on the other hand….



  • Creationism relies upon the existence of a god, which is unproven

  • Creationism relies upon a book with thousands of factual errors

  • Creationism is heavily backed by the least educated segment of the population (Coincidence?)

  • Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered.


So my opponent refuted their own point, and evolution stands as the more important, testable, and proven concept that should be taught to students over myths perpetuated from an antiquated book.


Contention 3 Refutation:


My opponent starts by calling the validity of my sources into question. The sources such as bible babble are in fact accurate because they deal with observable fact and scientific inaccuracies in the bible. I will list a few of the inaccuracies they point out as testimony for their validity.



  • “According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean.” Last time I checked, rabbits don't chew cud.

  • “Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine."” Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception.

  • “The ends of the earth isn't the only signs of the flat earth in the Bible. In Job 11:9 it says that heaven and hell's measurements are "Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea".” How long is a sphere? There is no length in a sphere. Now a flat two dimensional object would have a length.


It would also seem Ironic that my opponent rips on my sources and then cites “creationscience” (an oxymoron in itself) for one of their arguments.


I have already proved that creationism is not a valid doctrine so I will not waste the characters here.


I have also proven that Darwinian doctrine does not rely upon creationism. My opponent then goes into another angry rant about the validity of sources that I have already proven.


My opponent then comes up with a 64% statistic (down from the early 68%, maybe support for the myth of creationism is dropping that fast!) and states that I ignored it. However, I have already refuted the point that “because a bunch of people believe in it, then it must be true”. Apparently, because 68% of Americans are obese, we should preach the doctrine of obesity in schools too.



Well, with this debate I have shown that a valid scientific principle should be valued above a myth in school curriculums. My opponent has feebly tried to refute my point with religious doctrine, sources that are few and far between, and statistics that change over the course of the debate (64% or 68%, choose one!).


(http://debate.org...) Picture in link









Sources:



  1. 1. http://www.livescience.com...

  2. 2. http://www.ibtimes.com...

  3. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

youmils03

Con

youmils03 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tmar19652

Pro

In closing, my opponent has forfeited their arguments, and all of my contentions stand as un-refuted. I have shown why evolution should be valued above creationism in school curricula, and I have given a plan for how to do this. I have sourced all of my arguments, used more sources than con, and I have shown admirable conduct. Therefore the voters should vote Pro!
youmils03

Con

youmils03 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Actually, they are sourced arguments that undermined false religious doctrine.
Posted by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
I will also note that you have been uncivilized and perpetually undermined my arguments with your idealistic perceptions of my credible, valid evidence.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Maybe if you cited your myths then it would be clear.
Posted by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
The 64% and 68% statistics refer to 2 different things, and your inability to treat them differently and uniquely will be noted in my speech.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
You questioned my sources, and then source one of your arguments with a link to "Creationscience". That seems hypocritical to me. BTW-That link is broken, so please post it in the comments so I can watch the video.
Posted by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
JonK, I'd be careful with how you interpret tmar's statement. I wouldn't say that scientific evidence automatically makes something better to teach in schools. I would also say that Darwin's theory has holes and that there is "evidence" of creationism that strange evolutionary theories cannot explain.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
@JonK-Evolution is a proven theory so it should be taught in science classes, creationism is merely a myth, so it has no place in science classes, or any other mandatory class.
Posted by JonK 4 years ago
JonK
i'm an "old" earth creationist but i still don't agree that either creationism NOR evolution should be taught in schools. if anything would be offensive to teach in church (perhaps like evolution) then i wouldn't want my friends and family learning it in school.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
define as you wish.
Posted by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
One more thing: I should be at liberty to define evolution and creationism as I'd like in today's debate, and I should be able to criticize your definitions. Of course, you can do the same to my definitions if you feel that they are flawed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
tmar19652youmils03Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con abandoned the debate, and therefore conceded all arguments. Personally I don't believe the creation myth has any place in schools, and even religious private schools should be barred from teaching such nonsense.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
tmar19652youmils03Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because of FF. S&G is the same. A convincing arguents to pro because he does a better job of supporting his argument and because of con's FF. Reliable sources was a bit tricky, because at times, pro uses more reliable sources, but at the same time uses unreliable ones like wikipedia, so I'm going to have to tie that one. Until con's forfeit at the end, (sorry con) it was a well conducted and well done debate.