The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Should Evolution be taught in 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 375 times Debate No: 83426
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




In many schools religion can't be debated let alone talked about most of the time without offending someone. There have been many cases over evolution being taught in schools, as it contradicts what someone's holy book says. For example the Epperson v. Arkansas case.

Evolution is a well known fact, whether you like it or not. It should not be refuted because of someones "beliefs". What if my religion was that I couldn't do math on any day during the week. Would the school change it's curriculum because of my religion and how I feel? No. So then why is evolution so much different? It's like teaching a child what 5 + 5 is. It's all fact. I would enjoy to hear reasons as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in and school. I think it should be told to kids throughout the entire school system.


Counter argument:

You have claimed that evolution is fact. Yet you have not supported your assertion. I am well aware that there is evidence for microevolution, but there is hardly any evidence for macroevolution (species changing into new species). The evidence for macroevolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils. But this is actually evidence for a creator. How so?

It "demonstrates a common Designer, not a common ancestor. The clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc" (

The so called evidence for evolution could be seen as evidence for God. Evolution is a theory about what the evidence means. It is not even close to being a fact.

As for whether if it should be taught...I think it shouldn't be taught as a fact when it isn't. Why teach students theories as facts?

It should also be noted that not all religious people are against evolution. Some Christians for example believe that God used evolution to create people. But nevertheless I think that it shouldn't be taught in schools.
Debate Round No. 1


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. A theory as you described it is not some random and loosely thought about guess. We have 2 major fossils named Lucy and Ardi. These skeletons share the same skeletal design as humans with a few differences noticeable. Charles Darwin (The man who proposed evolution) studied finches in the Galapagos Islands for a period of time. He noticed that the finches varied from island to island. This helped him develop his theory of natural selection which followed the basic premise of, you either adapt and survive, or stay the same and die. Over a long period of time this can be seen taking effect. Neanderthals (whom we have fossils of) did not have near as developed vocal cords as our ancestor the Homo Sapien did. This was a disadvantage and they eventually died out. These adaptations over a long period of time are classified as evolution.

On one of your points, about automobiles and their classifications. So you think that because everything kind of clicks, it was made by an intelligent designer? Where is your proof of that designer? Scientists have fossils and have had studies conducted further strengthening our theory of evolution. All you can do is say "Well the pieces fit! It must be a higher being!" That's what the ancient romans and greeks did. Yes, they were mathematicians and amazing architects, but when they saw lightning, instead of saying, lets figure this out, they said "It's Zeus! He's angry!" Thats exactly what you're doing now. The odds that you and I exist is near 0. Yet we are here. God? No. Simple chance.


You claimed and I quote "Evolution is a well known fact, whether you like it or not." Your claim is just not true. According to the online dictionary, a fact is "something known to exist or to have happened." Whether your evolution theory is well-substantiated or not (macroevolution isn't), it is not a fact. It is merely just one possible explanation for how life exists.

As for Charles Darwin's (the man who may have recanted his theory) experiment, he showed evidence for microevolution. Religious people do not have any issue with that. People/animals adapt, that is a fact. But you still have not provided any evidence of macroevolution. You may have mentioned that "Neanderthals (whom we have fossils of) did not have near as developed vocal cords as our ancestor the Homo Sapien did." But there are several problems with this. One being that "it has been generally conceded by evolutionists, however reluctantly, that they would have to accept that Neanderthals were as human as we were" (Lewin 1999, pp. 156""163). Another problem with macroevolution is the similar features creatures have with unrelated animals. For example, "the octopus has an eye much like a human, but they are so distantly related according to evolutionists that they must say this type of eye evolved twice independently" (Meyer). This is crazy talk. Evolutionists are basically saying that it happened by chance. I for one am not willing to have that much faith in the evolutionary theory. Another problem with the evolutionary theory is that it can't explain why animals loose beneficial features. For example, "Evolution must commonly explain why animals lost certain features. For instance, looking at their evolutionary tree, they must say that humans lost a good sense of smell, or that cave fish lost the ability to see" (Meyer). Evolution can't explain these things. Why teach evolution as a fact when there are so many problems with it?

As for my point about automobiles and their classifications, I was merely pointing out another way the evidence of the nested hierarchical tree could be interpreted. Evolutionists always make the assumption that the evidence supports a common ancestor. But that assumption should not be taught as fact. Things are created in groups and when we see that type of organization in the fossils, it seems that they were created as well. Evolutionists take the leap of faith and assume that their theory is correct. That is fine but irritating when they go around telling people it is a fact. The fossil record does not support macroevolution at all.

God is not the subject of this debate. I am always amazed how the evolutionists I debate always attack God when they cannot provide any evidence for macroevolution. Nevertheless, I will address your points since I did mention an intelligent designer in round one. I have already provided some evidence. The nested hierarchical tree supports a designer. You would claim that the evidence supports a common ancestor, but the evidence is against such a view. You are correct that religious people claim that God did it. You claim that "the odds that you and I exist is near 0. Yet we are here. God? No. Simple chance." But lets take a look at this simple chance. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. Evolutionists claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.

Therefore evolution should not be taught as fact when there are so many problems with it.

Debate Round No. 2


ThePenguin forfeited this round.


Nothing more to say since my opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Breezyy 10 months ago
1st of all, ThePenguin (pro) contains many flawed statements in his argument... Also if you all are going to say that evolution is fact, PLEASE stop saying it is a "theroy". You say that there is "concrete evidence" about evolution. Say it! Can you really look at this world and say that there isn't a creator?
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
I beleive macroevolution, or speciation should not be taught as a fact but instead as a theory. Which my school and most public schools have been doing. Of course that is all we have is theories on our origin. However scientific and geological evidence has in recent times pointed towards intelligent design.
Posted by obliviousmassacre 10 months ago
I completely agree that evolution should be taught in schools. After all, we actually have some concrete evidence to back that theory up, unlike the theory that God created us. There would be nothing wrong with teaching the theory in school and letting the students make up their own minds on how they think we got here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 10 months ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Peepette 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won due to the forfeit, but also gave more convincing arguments.