Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)
Debate Rounds (5)
I do not believe that creationism is a viable model for our existance to be taught as a fact. I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existance today and creationism should not be taught in schools.
My opponent will try to disprove this that creationism can be a viable explanation for our existance and must present his/her arguments in the first round.
"i do not believe that creationism is a viable model for our existance to be taught as a fact. I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existance today and creationism should not be taught in schools.
My opponent will try to disprove this that creationism can be a viable explanation for our existance and must present his/her arguments in the first round."
before we begin debate, we must first define two of the main key words with definitions that are general well accepted.
Evolution -Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.(dictionary.com)'
creationism-the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.(dictionary.com)
explanation-a statement or account that makes something clear
viable- capable of working
contention one is evolution
Evolution in its nature is only a theory designed to explain the change of species and population through millenia of growth and change. A THEORY IS NOT FACT, ONLY AN EXPLANATION FOR OBSERVATIONS. Evolution can only describe how life has created and how we came to existence through preexisting organisms. Evolution in itself cannot explain how the universe came to be where creationism can. Evolution cannot explain how the earth was formed, that requires other forms of science and explanation. Evolution is based upon the assumption that life A. prexisted and B. the earth was already formed before it. Evolution cannot explain how the world came to be, only how preexisting life changed into humans, unlike creationism.
contention two is education
Education is when someone or something gives you instruction and/or information about certain things. It's necessary for our education system to teach our children. Giving them ideas such as creationism as well as the theory of evolution facilitates thought rather than teaching them one thing and one thing only. Without questioning current ideology etc, we would no longer have modern philosophy or important movements like feminism. Even though creationism may be disproved by your arguments, it should be taught at schools nonetheless. It is important and necessary for our education system to facilitate intellectual debate and thought so that generations to come can continue to have debates such as these. Giving them one explanation for all the occurences of nature etc. is not only illogical, it is detrimental to creative thought and/or intellectual thought. One explanation to our existence cannot encompass thousands of years of human curiousity that has spurned such thought only to be undermined by a relatively new science, which is evolutionary biology. That being said, creationism should not be taught as a science based study but possibly incorporated into courses such as psychology since it is an belief and based upon faith aside from science.
contention three is Debate in itself
Creationism is a faith based belief to explain our creation and cannot be taught as fact. creationism is not a science and should not be treated like one. Trying to argue that evolution is right and that creationism is a false dichotomy. One is the theory of how organisms change into their current form, the other is an belief that there is a divine being(God in most instances) that has created everything. They do conflict, but it is very had to argue between these two as there are huge descrepencies that i have mentioned.
"My opponent will try to disprove this that creationism can be a viable explanation for our existance and must present his/her arguments in the first round."
*grammatical error, i believe i'm trying to prove that creationism is a viable explanation, but anyways."*
I should not have to prove that Creationism is right and that evolution is wrong. "A viable explanation" is not universal since an explanation is merely a statement that makes something clear, both creationism and evolution can make our existence clear to many different sorts of people, therefore one explanation is illogical. Since i must present a case that creationism is a "viable explanation," then i will state that God created everything. That is a statement that makes something clear to someone(how we came about) and is viable since it is feasible for a mind to believe as millions have previously accepted this belief.
A common argument creationists use is that "Evolution is just a theory!" Evolution being just a theory was one of your first arguments and I would like to talk about what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory and the dictionary theory are different things. A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific achievment, scientific theories are proven by countless studies and experiments. A scientific law and scientific theory are completely different things and one never becomes the other. Saying that "evolution is just a theory" is not a relevant argument. Gravity is also "just a theory." A scientific theory has all relevant evidence pointing towards it and there is little to nothing to disprove that. Creationism is a folk tale with little to no proof and it can easily be disproven. I do not think all of the bible should be taken literally, in fact Jesus did not really write the bible and neither did god.
Evolution is not the explanation for everything?
You have claimed that Evolution can not explain everything. Evolution is not supposed to explain how the Earth came to be or how the Universe came to be. There are completely different processes with those, the Universe came from the Big Bang and the Earth and other planets, The sun and nearby stars came from a nebula. Nebulas came from the dust from dying stars. Every scientific theory to explain how everything came has much more proof then taking the Bible too literally as proof. Creationism is simply saying everything just came out of nowhere and that god created everything just like that.
We should not give students the idea of Creationism and Evolution, Creationism is a folklore and evolution is a scientific theory. While it is important to teach steudents multiple sides to an argument, evolution is a fact and there is no better explanation. Creationism can not come to having as much evidence as Evolution does. we should not be teaching students that Creationism can possible be right because creationism is utter nonsense. Science and Religion should not be taught as conflicting with each other.
Now without further ado, I shall present all the issues that disprove creation.
A. The size of the Observable Universe.
Now according to creation, God created Earth and light on day one and the sun, moon and stars on day four. We have estimated the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. According to creation, the Earth was the first thing created. However, the observable universe is 13.8 billion light years in diameter, we can see light that took 13.8 billion years to travel to the Earth.
The youngest the universe can possible be is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If creation were true, the Earth would be roughly the same age as the Universe only spread apart by 3 days. However, we know the universe is 3 times older than the age of the Earth.
Microevolution is happening before our eyes. Elephants are evolving smaller tusks due to poachers which we can observe and bacteria are evoloving immunity to certain medicines. Whiteflies evolve immunity to pesticides, and there are many other examples of microevolution. Over the course of a longer period of time, larger evolutionary change will happen. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only different periods of time.
C. DNA and fossil evidence.
The fossil record shows that 200,000 year old fossils show homo-sapiens that looked somewhat like us, if we dig any deeper we can't find them. We have dated the age of fossils to determine how evolution happens over time. Different creatures existed during different time periods according to fossil dating. If creation were true, that would mean the creatures on Earth had stayed realitvely the same after the flood which is no where near true. Creationism is denying a lot of science. 98% of our DNA is similair to chimpanzees. If the creation concept were true, all post-flood organisms would stay the same and not evolve today. We can tell that ecosystems were very different a long time ago from digging up fossils and all and the reason is due to evolution.
There is no proof that Creation existed. If Adam and Eve were real, inbreeding would be an issue so those two people could not simply populate the entire Earth. Fossil and DNA evidence shows that evolution exists. Evolution is observable, we can observe microevolution and logically estimate macroevolution. The size of the observabale universe shows that the Univserse is far older than Earth. There are other pieces of evidence that prove evolution aswell.
Pro has not proven Creation nor disproven evolution at all, I have proved my point. Creation is falsified, Evolution is proven. If we want our society to improve, we can not teach folklores as fact and take the Bible literally.
opening: scientific theorem, creationism is not a science
I apologize for the inconvenience that i jumpstarted the debate too early and have started debating when i should've agreed to the debate terms. i hope that this will create more thoughtand effort into our debate.Firstly, I concede that creationism is not backed by science or evidence because creationism is a faith based belief that cannot be taught as a fact. Like i have previously stated, Creationism is not a science and should not be treated like one. Con has tried to disprove a belief with science, even though creationism the people who believe in creationism are devoted to it completely by faith. Throwing facts and figures at a belief is like shooting a gun to make plants grow, there is no function. It's true that God or Jesus didn't write the bible, but it is the belief that those who were under his influence did, and God gave those people the necessary knowledge. Also, con's claim that gravity is a theory as well is false, since gravity is a force and phenomenon described explicity in Newton's law of universal gravitation.
"I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existance today"
Utilizing the exact words con has provided me, evolution in con's argument should be the only logical explanation for our existance today. Con also failed to address my point on biogenesis. If evolution truly does explain all existence of organisms, where did they all originate from? Since biogenesis is an integral part of evolution, it is a topic that is imperative that Con should address. I extend my evidence that Evolution does not explain our existence without the need of other scientific postulations and theorems and evolution in itself is not an explanation at all. Evolution is not the only logical explanation for our existance today. Also, Evolution is a theory, Macroevolution has never been observed but the steps needed to take it have evidence to back it up.
Creationism is a footnote in today's education system and it should remain a footnote. Creationism represents a major belief that encompassed much of the world's thought since ancient times and it is still a major belief held onto by many people. Even if creationism isn't real, it should still be taught on the grounds that it was the accepted thought for many past generations. Creationism should still be taught, not in science class, but in classes such as social studies like in a history class for example. Creationism is not a religion in itself, but a religious belief. It’s important for children to know all ways of thinking.
Trying to argue that evolution is right and that creationism is a false dichotomy. One is the theory of how organisms change into their current form, the other is an belief that there is a divine being(God in most instances) has created everything. Our debate does not come down to whether or not God or Evolution has created Humans, rather, it comes down to whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools. It also comes down to whether or not creationism is a viable explanation for our existance.
In conclusion, i would like to reiterate my previous statements that Con has failed to address. I should not have to prove that Creationism is right and that evolution is wrong. Rather, i must show that creationism is a viable explanation. But a viable explanation" is not universal since an explanation is merely a statement that makes something clear, both creationism and evolution can make our existence clear to many different sorts of people, therefore having only one explanation is illogical. Since i must present a case that creationism is a "viable explanation," then i will state that God created everything. That is a statement that makes something clear to someone(how we came about) and is viable since it is feasible for a mind to believe as millions have previously accepted this belief. Con has repeatedly tried to attack this position with scientific evidence which i refuse to address because i have already stated originally that creationism is a belief and not a science, it is based upon faith and not by observations. scientific analysis of a a religious belief is ludicrous. Con has supported a scientific theory with scientific evidence. My job is not to prove creationism, it is to show that it can be a viable explanation. Like it or not, hundreds of millionions of people believe in creationism
I have presented my points in round 2, I would now like to present my rebuttal behalf on Pro's statements.
Creationism is a story based off a folklore which people should not take seriously. Like I mentioned before, the bible should not be taken 100% literally especially if it encompasses with fact. The simple meaning of science is the study of behavior and structure of the physical world and beyond. All legit scientific studies are backed up by good evidence, creation is a folklore which some people believe in for some stupid reason. Religion is different from science because religion can refer to lifestyle, a higher power and faith. A religious person can believe that a higher power is controlling science while an atheist/agnostic may believe that science is natural, not controlled by a higher power. Religion can also mean lifestyle and spirituality since Buddhism is a religion with no belief of a god or higher power. Whatever you do, you can't deny science no matter your faith. Creationism is the REJECTION of science and reality. The problem with creationists is that they believe god just created everything in the snap of a finger like that.
Denying a scientific theory proven many times is a denial of reality. I have used evidence of Evolution collected by scientists to disprove creationism in my previous argument. Science is a fact which can not be denied.
yes, evolution is backed up by science because it is a scientific theory, while creationism is not backed by science because it is a belief.
creationism is not a science, it should not be taught like one. My oponent has failed to realized that i am not advocating this to be taught as a science. I am advocating for creationism to be taught as a footnote in our education system where we must understand this belief. Creationism is not the rejection of science, but it rather a different ideological perspective on things that is in a different faith based realm away from science. creationism is as real as you believe it is. Let me reiterate, my job is not to prove that creationism, it is explain why it should remain to be taught in our school system and to explain how it can be a viable explanation. If there are hundreds of millions christians out there who believe in this thought, why should it not be atleast mentioned? our school system is here to educate us. Creationism i must reiterate, should not be held to the same standards as a science, nor should it be taught in science class. It should be taught in classes like history etc where it is relevant because it has altered billions of peoples lives and their perception on things. Also the understanding of some basic creationism is imperative to understand the history of our world. (the constitution has the words "e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."). according to the interpretations of con's version of an education system, we should not teach our children folklore and we should create a whole education system purely based upon science. Does anyone else see the very lack of creativity that cannot be inspired?
con has failed to address my final argument which i have repetively made, but here i will readdress them in an organized manner that i have proposed a "viable explanation"
God has created all humans. That is a viable explanation for our existance
A)viable-capable of working
B)explanation-statement that makes something clear
C)therefore, a viable explanation is an explanation that is= capable of working to make something clear
D)God created all humans. This clarifies who made humans, how humans were made, and this is capable to convince
because millions of people believe in this, and that is a fact.
(brooo, why we got 3 rounds of rebuttals? we gotta rererebuttal then)
I apologize but half of my argument for round 3 didn't show up.
Evolution may not explain where the first life came from. That is still a big mystery that nobody knows yet. Again you are saying that Evolution is a theory. I mentioned before, a scientific theory is different from the dictionary definition of a theory. Scientific theories are pretty much one of the highest things obtainable in Science. Scientific theories are hypothesis supported by lots of experiments and studies. It's like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multi-billionaire."
If microevolution is happening all around us, how is macro-evolution not true? It's pretty much common logic. Micro-evolution is confirmed and micro-evolution never stops. After a long period of time, lots of microevolution will happen to an organism which just is another way of saying macro-evolution. They are the SAME THING, just different amounts of time.
I'm starting to get confused on your definition of creationism. By creationism, I am referring to the belief that god created everything in the beggining and Evolution is false. Theistic-evolution and creationism are different things, I think religious people should be taught to accept theistic-evolution instead of creationism. Theistic evolution is the belief of God and the belief of Evolution.
Creationism has represented a lot of the world's thought and for the longest time, Creationism was the primary model for how we came. However, today's scientific age disproves Creationism and poses a more valid model, Evolution. People believed in many things in the past that have been disproven in today's society.
Creationism is the belief that everything was there from the start and was created by god. Evolution is how organisms change over time. There is nothing to disprove Evolution but lots to disprove creation. Theistic and naturalistic Evolution may vary depending on someone's religious beliefs but Evolution can not be rejected right now.
Creation should not be taught in school because it is completely FALSE. Science means knowledge obtained through study and/or practive. Science is reality, you can't ever go against science. Going against science is going against reality and creationism is a belief that goes against science.
I understand that some people may be religious and/or believe in a higher power. Theistic Evolution is the belief that Evolution exists but a higher power also exists and they may have possible created evolution and may be controlling evolution. If someone is religious, they should be taught accept the Theistic Evolution model instead of the Creation model. Theistic Evolution is reasonable because it's the belief of god or a higher power without the denial of science.
Young Earth Creationism
Young Earth creationism makes no sense. The Earth can't be 6000 years old, we have more than enough evidence to prove this. I don't even think the Bible said the Earth is 6000 years old, rather it is a false interpretation of the Bible.
Evolution should be taught as a fact UNLESS there is evidence to disprove Evolution. If you can find evidence that explains why there are different fossils at different points in time and something else to explain the change of organisms over time, you would CHANGE the world.
If somebody believes in a higher power, they should accept the Theistic Evolution model over Naturalistic Evolution. Pro has failed to address just how creationism is logical enough to explain part of our origins today. I have given examples on why creationism is wrong in one of my previous arguments.
Creationism is not a viable model because lots of scientific evidence goes against the idea of Creationism. Evolution is a viable model because it is supported by many pieces of evidence and facts.
I rest my case.
Con is being quite abusive, he's bringing up new arguments in the period that should be rebuttals and refuting past evidences, this is not right.
Evolution is a scientific theory, i have repeated this several times, yes it is backed up by science. We are debating about creationism- the belief that God creating all beings. Creationism is a belief, I have repeated over and over to con, we are not debating on whether or not creationism is backed by science or not, we are debating whether or not we should teach a fundamental religious principle to kids. You can disprove creationism all you want, it doesn't change the fact that hundreds of millions of people have and still do believe in it. It doesn't change the fact that this idea is ingrained into our history like in the declaration of independence. The Bible should not be interpreted literally. God's days may be different from human days, the Bible even specified, God plus is not in the physical realm altered by such trivial things such as time etc, he can stop time because He's omnipotent, putting a time frame God is like putting a time frame on the origin of the time period before the big bang, its nonexistent. The Earth is not 6000 years old, a Jewish rabbi calculated that a God day was approximately 2 billion years. Look it's stated in psalms "A thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday" (Psalm 90:4) this alludes that God may actually have created the earth a pretty long time ago. God is ageless but the universe isn't. So 7X2 billion=14 billion, around on par with with much of what scientists proved. But I'm not here to talk science am I.
topic:Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution V's Creation)
debate text:I do not believe that creationism is a viable model for our existence to be taught as a fact. I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existence today and creationism should not be taught in schools.
My opponent will try to disprove this that creationism can be a viable explanation for our existence and must present his/her arguments in the first round.""
Our debate is about education, not science. our debate is centered and focused on whether or not creationism is a viable model for our existence. Con has been arguing about science because he said "I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existence...." That is not my objective this debate, nor should I have to because the plan text didn't tell me to. I have already proved and defined the "viable explanation" he was searching for and that I have provided it. He has dropped it in round 2&3 and failed to bring it up meaning he concedes the evidence. I have already explained why creationism should be taught. Con has been trying to throw scientific fact after scientific fact to make my case look weak, despite the fact that I have argued that creationism is not supported by science, therefore why is Con throwing these arguments if I already stated that? The answer is simple truly, my opponent believes that I am advocated that creationism is and should be teached as a science, which is truly not what I stated. I stated that it should be taught, but not as a science and should not be treated like one. I believe that con has misunderstood what this debate truly comes down to: education. His argument for education is that we should not teach our children fairy tales. Creationism is not a fairy tale, it is unlike Hansel and Gretel, but is an idea that has been taught for generations. Con has also stated that our current education system now has a better alternative to how we came about, evolution. Yes evolution is much more scientific alternative but it does not undermine the fact that creationism has altered out history.These kids will be confused as to why our forefathers stated things such as "our creator" because they wouldn't know about creationism. We send student to schools to be educated, this will not teaching them a religion, but merely parts of history where it is relevant and important.
I rest my case. I may not be debating next round since I kind of started early if you don't want me to.
"we are not debating on whether or not creationism is backed by science or not, we are debating whether or not we should teach a fundamental religious principle to kids"
You're not actually following the debate
I mentioned this in the first round:
"My opponent will try to disprove this that creationism can be a viable explanation for our existance"
Viable means capable of working and realistic, creationism is not capable of working in today's society due to proof pointing towards the theory of evolution. You have not proved that creationism is viable at all. You have given me NO evidence what so ever to back up Creationism. By not being taught in schools, I meant it should not be taught like Evolution. I guess it could be mentioned in social studies a few times but not going too in depth into this concept. Creationism in schools should just be taught as a FALSE explanation for our existance.
You have mentioned that I can disprove creation but many people will still believe in it. The problem here is that we should NOT teach our children that creationism is logical. In schools, creationism should be mentioned that it has no proof to back it up and that Evolution is far more logical and realistic to explain part of our origins. If we teach kids more about evolution and evidence, we can lower the amount of people who still hold the idea of creationism. Creationists are people who deny science and reality in replace of their fictional tales.
You have not ever shown why Creation is a viable model at all. You may have mentioned it was but with nothing to back it up. You accused me of disproving Creation with science, but science is not fictional. Science is real, therefor I disproved Creation with reality. You are not mentioning why creation is viable and realistic. You are quite confusing me on this debate.
When people refer to creation being taught in schools, they talk about creationism being taught as an idea of how we came here alongside Evolution. They refer that it should be taught like Evolution should, you're confusing me with your definitions. You have ignored the main purpose of the debate and just mention that Creation has effected us and people believe in it.
Schools are not Church
We should not go too in depth about religious beliefs in schools unless it has something to do with history. If one wants to learn about religion, there are churches, mosks, temples and ect. to teach about religion. Is school a church? No.
In schools, creationism should only be mentioned as a false tale that people used to believe and some people still do today. Creationism should only be mentioned in two scenarios.
A) Creationism has something to do with history in social studies class
B) Students are learning about evolution. In this case, creation should be taught as a folklore which is disproven by the scientific theory of Evolution. It should be mentioned as a nonsensical belief, we should teach students who are religious to accept the model of theistic evolution. Even so, we shouldn't go too in depth about the Creation vs Evolution debate in school.
Pro has given realitively repetitive and confusing arguments and not has he once proved that Creation is a viable model for our existance. I have given examples on why Evolution is a viable model for where Homo Sapiens came from. I have also provided more sources than pro has.
Thank you con for having this debate with me.
This debate topic is "should creationism be taught in schools?(evolution vs. creationism)." Based on this topic, here is a direct quote from his speech.
""In schools, creationism should only be mentioned as a false tale that people used to believe and some people still do today. Creationism should only be mentioned in two scenarios.
A) Creationism has something to do with history in social studies class
B) Students are learning about evolution. In this case, creation should be taught as a folklore which is disproven by the scientific theory of Evolution. It should be mentioned as a nonsensical belief, we should teach students who are religious to accept the model of theistic evolution. Even so, we shouldn't go too in depth about the Creation vs Evolution debate in school. ""
I agree, creationism is not backed by science and evolution should be accepted in science classes. Con in this part of the speech has agreed with me that we should in fact teach our kids creationism. Teaching the young generation that creationism is wrong is still teaching about creationism because we are teaching the children why creationism is incorrect. Even so, to mention something in a social studies class is to partake and give knowledge, and to give knowledge is a form of teaching. Con agrees with pro. This debate comes down to one point, Should schools teach creationism? According to both pro and con, we should teach it whether in social studies or in science as an incompatible belief. case closed
vote pro, because voting con is voting pro, both support teaching creationism one way or the other. Have a nice day :).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, please pick a font and size next time, and make it bigger than this one was. Both sides argued their points well, but what put it on the CON side for me is that PRO essentially conceded in the first round. CON stated that creationism should not be taught as a fact, and PRO admitted that creationism is a faith based position which "cannot be taught as fact."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.