That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools
Debate Rounds (4)
Welcome to this debate. First round is for acceptance only.
The resolution is as follows:
"Both creationism and evolution should be taught in school."
I will take the pro side on this resolution. Con will argue that only creationism OR only evolution should be taught in school. Con may not argue that neither should be taught in school.
Both evolution and creationism will be recognized as theories:
Evolution: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Creationism: "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."
Since the voting system will be a simple "select winner," sources are not needed, but they are encouraged. I wish whoever accepts the best of luck!
Thank you for accepting this debate, con. I can pretty much guarantee that this debate will be fun and interesting! Since con failed to specify which side he was on (that only evolution should be taught/vice versa,) I will present my arguments in a neutral stance.
==Argument I: Demand==
The demand that creationism be taught in school is very evident. A recent poll showed that 46% of Americans believed in strict creationism . The number has also just went up, from 40% to 46%. If this many people believe in creationism, then it should not be denied in educational systems. We have the power to implement creationism as a subject in school, and if so many people want it, there is no good reason that we should not take that step.
A common argument that goes against this is that the people fail to see that creationism isn't scientific, so it has no place in classes. However, it does not necessarily need to be taught in science class. Creationism could easily be taught in an elective, a philosophy class, or even social studies.
There is also an argument if we take the word "demand" more literally. Some parents may demand their child be taught creationism, as evolution would go against their own beliefs. While, of course, the child would still learn about evolution, the child could learn about creationism in an optional class, or an elective. Thus, we give religious people a choice about which theory (or fact, for you literalists) they would like to learn about.
The same argument goes for evolution. An almost identical number, 48% of people, believed evolution is the correct theory, according to the same poll. Thus, we can see the demand for creationism and the demand for evolution are almost equal. Thus, there is no reason that only one of them should be taught in schools. In the unlikely event that there is a school that only teaches creationism, evolution could be an elective, also.
==Argument II: One of the theories is most likely correct==
In reality, creationism and evolution are the only two viable theories that explain human life, or that they are the only two theories that have solid evidence whatsoever . Polytheistic Gods have no evidence whatsoever, while monotheistic God has little evidence, but still some. So, the chances are that, most likely, one of the two theories is the correct one. So, with simple logic, we can see that if we only teach one of the theories, we have a good chance that we are teaching the wrong theory and the other one (creationism) is correct.
Now, if we teach both of the theories, there is a minimal chance that we are teaching the wrong one. Thus, by teaching both evolution and creationism, we almost automatically give the child the right theory, as opposed to a possible 50/50 chance. This would also let the child learning have a choice as to which one he chooses, so he can live his life the "correct" way, in his mind.
From both an atheist and a theist perspective, teaching one theory is bad. For example, a (monotheistic) theist would not like evolution because it does not relate to the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an, and would thus think that it would be the wrong choice for schools to teach that. As for creationism, atheists would think that the education system is leading kids to not have the right beliefs and be brainwashed towards a heavily flawed theory. Then, if we teach both, both groups are satisfied because they get at least one "right" theory.
For one second, let's assume creationism is undoubtedly the right theory. If someone believes otherwise, they will likely not get into heaven, all due to the education system. Even though this is a stupid way to think, it is still existent, and we are not going to quiet those guys down any way other than teaching creationism and giving the child a choice.
In all, it is better to be safe than sorry.
==Argument III: Children should know all sides of the story==
My third argument will be that children should know all sides of the story. In these days, we usually see arguments sparked because people do not know two sides of the story, and stick with a one-dimensional point of view. We can somewhat cease these arguments by making both sides of the story well taught, or at least taught to some extent. We don't reserve the right to stuff your beliefs into your child's mouth. People need to have the right of choice.
If people know both sides of the story, it does not only mean they are now more intelligent in the given story, but that diversity will increase. People will be able to have more insightful looks at the two theories alike and understand the counter's way of thinking. Of course, education is the most adequate way of doing this and sharing and expressing other people's beliefs.
When children know all sides of the story, the can gain more knowledge and engage in more insightful debates or conversations. They then think deeper into the sides and can really choose which one they believe in. It teaches them social ways that can not simply be taught by academic education. If we really strive for good education, we would need to teach this.
Since there is more than one round to submit arguments, I will stay with three for this round. I look forward to my opponent's response!
I would like to start out with my opponent"s argument 1. My opponent correctly cites a Gallup Poll and shows an almost 50/50 split in BELIEF. Contrary to what my opponent may think that does not show that those people would want their favored theory taught in schools. More than 2/3 of Americans want just Evolution taught in school, regardless of their religious beliefs. According to my opponent "We have the power to implement creationism as a subject in school, and if so many people want it, there is no good reason that we should not take that step." However as we can see that is not valid because people don"t necessarily "want" it.
My opponent also mentions that Creationism could be taught as an elective. That would completely violate the Separation of Church and State and given that Christian students already learn it, what would be the point of it? My opponent affirms that it can"t be taught in science classrooms (I will bring that up later) so if it isn"t valid, it can"t be taught.
My opponent mentions in their argument 2 that Creationism is viable and has research supporting it. THAT IS FALSE! Creationism has no evidence supporting and referencing Ken ham and answers in genesis isn"t valid evidence.
In response to argument 3, Creationsim isn"t a side that can be taught in school. They would learn religion anyway at home.
I look forward to my opponents response.
I thank my opponent for responding. May I point out con did not post his arguments, only refute mine. His BoP is that only one of the theories should be taught, yet he failed to provide any arguments for it. Posting arguments in the third round means I have to refute in the fourth round, where I should put my recap, so that is not good for con. Take note of this while voting.
My opponent drops various important points, as I will point out in the fourth round (if I have enough space.) I will refute the rebuttals that con has.
My opponent states that it is only a 50/50 split in belief. This is true, but he provides no evidence that people who believe in evolution want evolution taught more than people who believe in creationism want creationism taught. Thus, we can see that Americans want creationism taught just as much as they want evolution taught.
Polls also back this up. In another Gallup poll, we see that more people are not happy when evolution is taught versus when creationism is taught. We also see that people who want creationism taught in school is 30%. While it may seem like a low number, it is higher than the people who want evolution taught . He states that over 66% of Americans want only evolution taught. He states no evidence for this claim, and it has been proven false.
Then, we see that 30% of people would be upset if only evolution was taught, and just 18% upset if only creationism was taught. And then we see my position, both of the theories taught, has just a 4% unhappy rate, significantly lower than all of the other options. We can see that my opponent's rebuttal is both false and can be easily turned around. This point stands, and is solid evidence as to why creationism should be taught in public schools.
In conclusion, the following points that my opponent presented stand falsified:
-More than 2/3 of Americans want Evolution taught
-We see that people don't necessarily want Creationism taught, it is just belief
-That evolution is the "favored theory"
==CA2: One of the theories is most likely correct.==
My opponent starts out by saying that teaching creationism as an elective is a violation of "separating church and state." Then, teaching evolution is a violation of "separating science and state," which is obviously false. It is absolutely harmless to have creationism as an elective. He shows no valid reason as to why the separation of church and state would be broken, and no good reason why it shouldn't be taught as an elective.
Ok, say you learn math at home. You can't not just learn math at school, can you? You'd need to go deeper to understand it. That would be what a creationism elective does. For example, your parents probably know all the math taught to you in school. Same goes for creationism. But you go to school and math class to better understand it and find new ways to look at it. Same goes with creationism.
I say it "doesn't necessarily have to be taught in science classrooms." I would like you to point out exactly where I said it can't be taught in science classrooms. It can be taught because it is a well-believed explanation of life. Any good, solid explanation of life should be in the science classroom, or at least in school, so students know a few ways life could've began.
Creationism does have some evidence supporting it. This includes both scientific evidence and scientific laws , such as the laws of thermodynamics, such as the fact that the universe could not have existed forever nor created itself. We also have evidence for evolution, making both theories sound and both of them completely possible. I would like to see where Ken Ham references what my opponent states.
So that will end my second counter argument.
==CA3: Children should know all sides of the story==
My opponent's only rebuttal to this is that people learn religion at home. First, you don't show any evidence that creationism isn't a side that can be taught in school. That really missed the point. Evolutionists, like myself, do not learn religion at home. They should learn it at school to know all sides of the story, which was my whole point. I would like my opponent to focus more on the main point in my third argument. Until then, this arguments stands as correct and unrefuted.
I hand this debate over to my opponent and wish him luck!
My opponent in CA1 points out that my evidence is false. I have attached a works consulted page to "help." My opponent just succeeded in backing up my point. In their opening statement my opponent stated that BECAUSE of the 50/50 split we need to teach both. Then my opponent attempts to recalculate and say that less people would be mad? That just proves my point that 2/3 of Americans want Evolutionism taught, my opponents Gallup Poll shows that.
What I believe my opponent fails to understand is that Creationism doesn't have support. My opponent mentions that thermodynamics but in reality that just shows that something else could have happened. THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM! It merely allows for the presence of it. Evolution on the other hand has a lot of evidence supporting it.
My opponent also fails to understand the separation of church and state. I am stating that because Creationism is a relligious belief with NO evidence supporting it, it would basically be violating the separation because there is no basis for it. Separation of science and state is just something my opponent made up and should not be taken as fact.
I look forward to my opponents rebuttal!
I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.
I will start out the fourth round by showing the flaws in my opponent's argument. Or, better said, he never made an argument. Thus, his BoP can NOT be fulfilled. With that said, he can not win the debate with no arguments. Second, he only refuted the outline of my contentions, and left many details dropped. In conclusion, my opponent did not use a good debate strategy and it is pretty much impossible for him to win this debate.
As this is the last round, I will attempt now to make my argument too long, as when my opponent refutes, I can not respond. My opponent states that he has attached a page, yet there is no page attachment that I can see. I did say less people would be mad because the page I cited was of more than five different polls on the subject. I state from the third round:
"Then, we see that 30% of people would be upset if only evolution was taught, and just 18% upset if only creationism was taught. And then we see my position, both of the theories taught, has just a 4% unhappy rate, significantly lower than all of the other options." CA1, Round 3
...which my opponent failed to respond to. Thus, we can consider this point dropped. My opponent states that 2/3 of people want evolution taught because 30% would be upset (or about 1/3) if it was taught. I can use that logic to say that 82% of people want creationism taught because 18% would be upset if it was taught.Either my opponent's reasoning is wrong, or more people want creationism taught than evolution. Both work for me!
You obviously failed to read the evidence. It states "the universe can not create itself." The most best-explained and most likely explanation is God, who created the universe. It does support creationism. There is also other evidence that supports a young earth and the Bible, and creationism. For example, many "dated" fossils can only be a few thousand years old, pointing to a major flaw in the dating system. Evidence is present in geological, astronomical, and fossilized forms .
Separation of science and state is the same basics of separation of religion and state. Science has flaws, and religion has flaws. Both are unproven as the dominant force, and a religious person might not want science in school, and vice versa. And yes, creationism has a basis. I have shown that.
I will end my rebuttals here and I thank my opponent for this debate!
I have cited my sources. Also, I have provided arguments, I just didn't give them titles.
I will end my rebuttals here and I thank my opponent for this debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won with the argument that Evolution is just as false to creationists as Creationism is to evolutionists, and that there is a significant population of people who would like Creationism to be taught in school. Con mainly responded with unsourced (and thus dismissed) statistics and with baseless claims that religion is for the home only and creationism is completely devoid of evidence. Pro effectively debunked these claims by showing that creationism does have a basis in reality due to the large gaps in our current scientific knowledge. Pro wins.
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.