The Instigator
IanScottWilson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should Creationism be taught in public schools?

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...
DeFool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,094 times Debate No: 26162
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

IanScottWilson

Con

This is a simple question and a difficult topic, for some. As for me, my answer to the topic is a clear no. This first round will be used for my opponent to accept, and then present his support for the motion.
DeFool

Pro

I want to thank my partner for presenting this challenge, I always eager to discuss this topic. I also want to point out - in the strongest possible terms - that Creationism will never find a more committed foe than I. So viscous am I in my treatment of this noxious doctrine that I am more than impatient to administer low-blows and cheap shots at the concept.

I accept the challenge, therefore. (I realize that I seem to be not making much sense. I will have to explain in the next round.)

A tedious task, but a necessary one, is the chore of definitions.

I interpret this to be a debate over whether or not students in public schools should be taught about Creationism. This should include teaching students what Creationism is, the history of the concept, its development over time, and criticisms.

Creationism, defined by the online dictionary maintained by Google: "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

This argument neatly combines the two definitions, and is quite concise. It can be restated as:

"Schools should teach students about Creationsim."

If all of this seems in order to my partner, I await his Opening Argument.
Debate Round No. 1
IanScottWilson

Con

I would like to apologize to anyone reading this, as well as to my opponent. I believe we are actually on the same exact page and hold the same position. I, obviously, am against the idea of creationism (horrible, horrible) but like my opponent (as i guess now) believe that the history of it should be taught and that it should not be purged from history entirely as it is a very important aspect of the fight against illogic and religion.
I therefore forfeit the argument, for fear I would be preaching to the choir, and I am sure my opponent shares the same views as I (on this topic at least).
DeFool

Pro

No apologies are needed, as far as I am concerned. I value - and highly respect - intellectual integrity and zeal. I accept the resignation.

As my partner correctly anticipated, I had, indeed intended to argue that the teaching of Creationism in schools would likely cause the doctrine to become subject to ridicule, and therefore seen for what it is. Creationism is by no means science, and by no means Christian.

I am not making a polemic argument; Creationism must be seen as a heresy to almost all theists, Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. It represents a new-age religion, not unlike Scientology and Neo-Paganism, that attempts to find new converts by pretending to follow the doctrines of almost any theistic narrative. Adherents believe that they are being true to their religion. However, often ignorant of the actual particulars of the religion that they follow, these new converts are unaware of their heresy.

On the other hand, Creationism is such a laughable failure as a follower of the scientific method that it's inclusion in science classes would be a vomitous outrage.

Increasing the public understanding of this new religion would benefit the public in many ways.
Debate Round No. 2
IanScottWilson

Con

IanScottWilson forfeited this round.
DeFool

Pro

We will extend the arguments. Since we have reached agreement, this process should move along fairly rapidly.
Debate Round No. 3
IanScottWilson

Con

IanScottWilson forfeited this round.
DeFool

Pro

Many thanks to my partner, for his intellectual honesty, and I want to ask for votes - if this is not unseemly.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
After some thought... it has occurred to me that I may not want to discredit all neopaganism in such an offhand, flippant way. Much neopaganism involves pantheistic doctrines - which I have a very difficult time attacking logically. Although I enjoy calling myself "atheist," I may at some point in the future reassess this. As it stands, I fear that "pantheist" is simply a way to avoid the hard truth of the matter.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
My rationale is to group neop paganism into the same class of religion as creationism - because I know that creationists are insulted by the similarities.

However, as a "neo" religion, neo paganism is as antiquated as Scientology and the others - justifying the accuracy of my assessment.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
"It represents a new-age religion, not unlike Scientology and Neo-Paganism, that attempts to find new converts by pretending to follow the doctrines of almost any theistic narrative."

And your rationale for saying this about neo-paganism is what, exactly?
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
What a good idea.... Consider it considered
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
yay, double post. What a n00b moment... ...
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
I like the contention by DeFool that Creationism is heresy. I've always rather felt that way. It would be a delight to see you debate with that prompt, I am sure you would have a taker.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
I like the contention by DeFool that Creationism is heresy. I've always rather felt that way. It would be a delight to see you debate with that prompt, I am sure you would have a taker.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
IanScottWilsonDeFoolTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Looks like Mr. Atheist was wrong for once.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
IanScottWilsonDeFoolTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con changed his position in round two to agree with his opponent. Then he forfeited the rest of the debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
IanScottWilsonDeFoolTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments, con had two FFs and even agreed with pro in his final argument.