The Instigator
brands
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
qtpi314
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Theists have no good reason for why evolution should not be mandatory teaching in all schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 78321
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

brands

Pro

Evolution is a controversial topic, and I believe it should not be. Many religious people feel that it should not be taught to children, mostly on the basis that it is only a theory. I ask for a theist to argue their either their reason to believe that evolution is false, and therefore should not be taught, or whatever other reason they have for their anti-evolution stance, if it is a stance they take.
qtpi314

Con

I am unsure as to what the structure of this debate will be, so I will post a general overview of my argument for round 1:

Evolution should not be mandatory teaching because it should be classified as a religion. Evolution has not been proven to be true, and it takes a certain amount of faith. For example, there has been no scientific explanation for how something could appear from nothing, and as a result we must simply believe that it happened. Belief without evidence is equivocal to faith, and therefore evolution should be classified as a religion.
Debate Round No. 1
brands

Pro

Firstly, thank you for accepting this debate. Secondly, I will address your first point. You liken the theory of evolution to "faith" since there is a lack of complete proof. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... - The oxford dictionary defines faith as a complete trust or confidence in something. I argue it is unfair to label evolution as this. Science rather goes about the opposite of this. Scientists never place complete faith in something, and that is how new theories and ideas are made and improved upon. Evolution is just a theory, but it is the most widely accepted theory. Being a very relevant part of science, I argue that it should be taught in science. Since it is a very probable cause for life on this planet developing as it has/is, I feel children would miss a large chunk of what should help form their ideas of the world.

Also, if you could please explain further your " something could appear from nothing" statement, as I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. It is also not necessary to fully believe it. Unlike religion, you do not need to give complete trust in it. But due to its importance, children should know about it, and understand it, before making a final judgement. They may even end up trying to find evidence against the theory, as that is how science works.

To say that it is a religion is also unfair. Scientific ideas and theory's are built on research and evidence, and old useless theory's get thrown away if wrong. Yet evolution still provides the most answers. To say it is a religion is to say every scientific theory is religion, which is absurd.
qtpi314

Con

qtpi314 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
brands

Pro

brands forfeited this round.
qtpi314

Con

qtpi314 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by UNOWN301 1 year ago
UNOWN301
@Cook123

3. Proof is really only something you can get in two things - mathematics and alcohol (the alcohol part is a joke). What I'm saying is, you never get proof in anything, not absolute proof anyway, not in the way you can in mathematics for example. Not even in science. But in our faith, it should be motivated by evidence. A biblical view of faith is to trust in something due to the evidence. This is why Paul in 1 Peter 3:15 tells us "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. " The hope we have, or trust in God that we have, should have reasons and evidence behind it.

4. The theory of evolution doesn't need to state how the first cell/macromolecule came about. Otherwise, we'd call it the theory of the origin of live or something like that. If you disagree with how far they take some of the teachings in the textbooks, that is fine. But don't discount the great evidence for the theory of evolution on account of that dispute.
Posted by UNOWN301 1 year ago
UNOWN301
@Cook123

1. You say "But no evidence supports evolution". I suppose this means that all I have to do is show 1 piece of evidence in support of the theory evolution to disqualify that claim.
Evidence 1: Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. This means that within the human and chimpanzee genome (which contains around 3 million base pairs), we are finding endogenous retroviruses in both genomes in the exact same place. The likelihood of this happening is unfathomable. What makes more sense is to say that chimps and humans both have a common ancestor which once had those retroviruses and passed it on to its descendant.

2. Ok, let me help you a bit because you are very confused on this. Gravity is observable - we can observe two objects of a given masses being attracted to each other. When you hold a book up and drop it, you can observe it being attracted to the Earth and eventually hitting the ground. The same thing is true for evolution which can be defined as 'change in biological organisms over time'. We can observe birds' beaks on the Galapagos islands change shapes due to environmental pressures.

However, the theory of gravity (which is what I was obviously referring to) cannot be observed. A theory is the explanation of the facts. In other words, the theory of gravity explains why two bodies of mass are attracted to each other. The same thing is true for the theory of evolution - it explains.
Posted by Cook123 1 year ago
Cook123
@UNOWN301

1. You say "Good theories get tested against evidence and any future evidence..." But no evidence supports evolution, so it shouldn't qualify as a scientific theory.

Scientific Theory - 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.

2. You are wrong in comparing evolution with the gravity. We can observe the effects of gravity and can confirm it through test and experimentation, unlike evolution.

3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Faith - Noun, belief that is not based on proof

Not based on Proof.

4. Yes, but abiogenesis is still taught as truth in science textbooks. If the evolutionist wants to say that a macromolecule turned into a human, they should be able to provide an explanation for where that macromolecule came from.

5. Again,
Faith - Noun, belief that is not based on proof
Posted by UNOWN301 1 year ago
UNOWN301
qtpi314, unfortunately, already in your opening summary, you make a couple fatal errors that will make this debate relatively unfruitful.

1. Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore does not need to be proven to be true. There are many scientific theories that have not been 100% proven to be true, yet we still teach them uncontroversially in the science classroom. In science, a theory explains the facts - in other words, its an inference to the best explanation. Good theories get tested against evidence and any future evidence, and evolution has not escaped that fate.
2. You seem to think that because a theory cannot be proven, it is therefore a religion. This is obviously incorrect. The theory of gravity, for example, is not known with 100% certainty, but we sure don't call that a religion.
3. I'm a Christian, and I have faith in Christ. But your error is thinking that faith is a way of knowing something. Faith is not an epistemology, rather its a way of trusting in something. Faith in the Bible is never proposed as something we do in the absence of evidence, rather it is trusting in something DUE TO the evidence. Christ does not say "trust in me without evidence because I said so". No, instead it is Paul who says "I have written these things down so that you may know the truth". It is the evidence that leads to our faith in Him.
4. You describe evolution as "something that could appear from nothing". But evolution is a biological theory on the origin of species, not the origin of life. That is an entirely different question, don't conflate them.
5. Again at the end you equate faith with 'belief without evidence'. This is just terrible and does a disservice more than anything to the Christian faith.

Hopefully you take these comments as helpful advice rather than ridicule, I just want to make sure my criticisms are clear. Thanks
No votes have been placed for this debate.