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

The teaching of creationism should be banned in all 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 17617
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Creationism is not proven by science and is thus not educational so it should not be taught in public schools.


I thank pro for this debate.

Now, I'd like to point out that I agree that this topic is too broad and I noticed you haven't posted enough arguments to support your claim that Creationism isn't educational. Also, I'm not sure which public schools, so I'll argue public schools worldwide instead.

Yes, Creationism isn't proven by science but Grammar and Civics can't be proven by Science too but it's still educational. Creationism is an educational topic and vitally important to Christian Education or religious subjects, which are taught in most public schools worldwide. Creationism can be taught in the Religion classes, not nescessarily in Science classes.
But according to an article (1), that Michael Reiss, a scientist of Royal Society, urged that Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, he said that it would be better, to treat creationism as a world view.

Done for now, good luck to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 1


People should not have religion forced on them. Why do we teach some religions and not others? Schools should only teach facts and not religion.


Thanks to pro for his response.

Religious subjects vary in some countries. For example, the Philippines, a Catholic country, teaches Christian Living Education for all Christians, the other students with different Religions either go out or join in. In some parts of Europe, Religion is taught as a subject for Christians, and the non-Christians go out the classroom and attend some other subject then eventually have their own Religion as a subject. I don't see how we 'force' them, and it's not like they're hurting each other. When a school has a 'school mass' to celebrate an event, the students are given a choice to either join or not. Not forced. People have their own choices, freedom and privilege to Religion. Let's just respect that.

Also, Religion is a fact. History tells us so; artifacts, scriptures, ancient teachings. The fact is very clear. It has played a major role in society.

Pro's case is somewhat lacking backup and needs more convincing arguments to refute my line of reasoning. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Zach055 forfeited this round.


Since Pro has forfeited this round, I urge voters to vote Con since Pro did not show any sources or even refuted some of my arguments in hand.

Thank you for reading the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zach055 7 years ago
I have made a new debate here:
Posted by cabio 7 years ago
No, they are quite different. And that can bring a very different debate. One starts with the Bible, and finds the science; the other starts with science and observation, and comes to a religious conclusion.
Posted by Zach055 7 years ago
Intelligent Design is taught in some states, and that is basically creationism.
Posted by 000ike 7 years ago
creationism isn't taught in schools in the United States, so I don't see the point of this debate.
Posted by cabio 7 years ago
Ok, and one more. Will you start out the debate defending your claim, or do you want Con to start out with their defense?
Posted by cabio 7 years ago
Sorry, one more. Are you saying that everything that cannot be proven scientifically should not be taught in a public school?

As it stands, this debate topic seems way too broad and undefined.
Posted by cabio 7 years ago
I think before anyone tackles this one, a lot of things need to be defined. What specifically do you mean by "Creationism?" A belief in a literal 6 day creation by God, or would you count intelligent design as a type of Creationism? What is science? What is your definition of "scientific" or "proven scientifically?"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
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 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 Man-is-good 7 years 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was lacking in justification, and proof, whereas Con adequately pointed out the relevance of religion, as a 'fact' in history, and that 'creationism', even if it is unconfirmed by scientific findings, is still educational and necessary in parts of the world. In addition to providing better arguments, Con also provided a source (granted it was only one), but that was more than Pro's sources, which were none.