The Instigator
AbhijeetWatts
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

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: 12/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 42894
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

AbhijeetWatts

Con

Let's have a good debate, shall we?

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Summary

Definitions:

Creationism: The belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. (1)

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (2)

Rules:

1. No swearing or cursing. We want a friendly debate.
2. Follow the definitions as closely as possible. The last thing we want is to go off-topic.
3. Separate each point of contention/substantive/argument into paragraphs with a clear title for each of your argument. This is for the purpose of Rebuttals.

If there's nothing else, then let's get started.

(1) http://global.britannica.com...
(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
theta_pinch

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
AbhijeetWatts

Con

I thank theta_pinch for accepting the debate. I hope we have a good debate and learn many things.

Onto my first point of contention, Scientific Discourse'. As stipulated by the definition given in Round 1, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. As far as I am concerned, there are three criteria which anything or any idea must fulfill before being considered as a viable thing to be taught in science classes. These three criteria are;

1. It has to study the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world.
2. The study has to be through observations
3. Observations have to supported by experimental evidence.

Creationism would, with great difficulty, only fulfill one of the criteria and that is the 1st criteria, which is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. Creationism would, as stipulated by the definition given, assert that God is the explanation for all physical phenomenon which take place in the Universe. However, it does not provide any observations for such a claim and furthermore, it does not provide any experimental proof to support the claim. Therefore, it is not a viable thing to be taught in a science class as it does cause scientific discourse among students, who would simply use 'God' as the explanation for all things which take place in this Universe.

My second point of contention would be entitled 'Laws of Science'. In Science class, children are usually taught the meaning of 'big' words such as 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis is defined as a 'proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts'(3) and a theory is defined as 'an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true'(4). Creationism does not suffice as a hypothesis, much less a theory, because it does not work upon highly established facts. How can we, as the older generation, teach youngsters something which is not even considered a hypothesis in science class? Creationism belongs in the realm of Philosophy or Theology because it is separate from science and therefore, should not be taught in science class.

Though I argue for creationism to not be taught in science class, I do not argue that it should not be taught anywhere else. Philosophy classes are the perfect place to bring up Creationism as children or students will be able to familiarize themselves with the idea of what Creationism is without mixing it with the words 'theory' or 'hypothesis'. Thank you.

Please note that this round is for arguments only. As such, no rebuttals are allowed until the next round. So hold it in. I know it's difficult and I understand but it's for the debate to be crystal clear for not only the two debaters but for the people who are reading the debate right now. Thank you once again and hope you have a nice day :)
theta_pinch

Pro

Creationism should be taught in science class because the universe may actually be a computer program created by an incredibly advanced race who to our limited perspective could be considered gods.
Debate Round No. 2
AbhijeetWatts

Con

For my rebuttals, I only have one rebuttal as Pro only provided one argument.

'Creationism should be taught in science class because the universe may actually be a computer program'

This is pure speculation. It might very well be true that we are in a computer program but that gives us no reason whatsoever to teach creationism in science class.

'created by an incredibly advanced race who to our limited perspective could be considered gods'

Again, pure speculation. According to the definition of Creationism in the context of this debate, it is the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. Note that it states that only one being was responsible for the creation. So your hypothesis is still valid but it does not constitute any reason why we should teach creationism in the classroom.

Even if it were true that there was an incredibly advanced race who would be considered gods, it doesn't mean that they have all of the characteristics of a god, such as omnipotence, omnipresence etc. They would be gods in the sense of having a higher form of technology than ours. But they wouldn't have the qualities which we think gods would ever have if they did exist. Also, this advanced race would still be the result of some sort of evolutionary process, so different from ours that they might have a different language from ours and even better technology.

I conclude by saying that Pro has to make a rebuttal against all of my arguments in Round 2 before the summaries in Round 4. I wish my opponent luck and a good day as well.
theta_pinch

Pro

"'Creationism should be taught in science class because the universe may actually be a computer program'

This is pure speculation. It might very well be true that we are in a computer program but that gives us no reason whatsoever to teach creationism in science class."
Actually scientists right now are measuring the trajectories of cosmic rays to see if they are coming more from a certain direction than others to try and find evidence that the universe really is a computer program. It would be evidence because if the universe were a computer program, some things would not be perfect such as random directions of cosmic rays.

"'created by an incredibly advanced race who to our limited perspective could be considered gods'

Again, pure speculation. According to the definition of Creationism in the context of this debate, it is the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. Note that it states that only one being was responsible for the creation. So your hypothesis is still valid but it does not constitute any reason why we should teach creationism in the classroom."
It's because the computer world hypothesis is a hypothesis!


"Even if it were true that there was an incredibly advanced race who would be considered gods, it doesn't mean that they have all of the characteristics of a god, such as omnipotence, omnipresence etc. They would be gods in the sense of having a higher form of technology than ours. But they wouldn't have the qualities which we think gods would ever have if they did exist. Also, this advanced race would still be the result of some sort of evolutionary process, so different from ours that they might have a different language from ours and even better technology.
I completely agree. (If I were a creationist I would say)You just need to have faith.


Debate Round No. 3
AbhijeetWatts

Con

I thank my opponent for his rebuttals. Moving onto a summary of my summaries for my arguments.

My first argument entitled Scientific Discourse displays the need for Creationism to fulfill three important criteria in order for it to be considered as true science. These three criteria are;

1. It has to study the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world.
2. The study has to be through observations
3. Observations have to supported by experimental evidence.

Creationism does not fulfill these three criteria and therefore, cannot be considered as true science which can be taught in science class as a theory or hypothesis of any sort.

My second argument entitled 'The Laws of Science' tries to argue that creationism does not suffice as a hypothesis or a theory and thus, cannot be taught as real science in a science class until it is able to provide reasons as to why it should be considered a valid hypothesis or a valid theory of science. Since it has not been able to provide any such reasons, it cannot and should not be taught in science class and therefore, should be taught in a philosophy class or a theology class or at a church, if you will.

I thank Pro for an interesting debate and will wait patiently for his summary of his arguments. I hope you have a nice day.
theta_pinch

Pro

I have been convinced*; creationism should NOT be taught in science classrooms.


*I'm not actually a creationist.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Ok Theta Ok. Not a creationist yet debating with me lol
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Well, I took the definitions from proper Online Dictionaries so I don't think that they are wrong or anything. Also, I consider the Computer Hypothesis to be scientific simply because it is much more plausible than Creationism. A computer simulation would have to be imperfect, which explains why we don't live in a perfect Universe.

Though, I must say that it IS very strange that the advanced race did bring about humans very late into the simulation. Why go through the torture of evolution when you can program humans straightaway?
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
By the way discovery magazine recently had an article on the hypothesis. However for this debate I did use an interpretation different than intended.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Here's wikipedia's page on the simulation theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Both sides of this argument are fallacious, and neither properly define science or the terms...but the utterly foolish notion that the 'computer program hypothesis' is either scientific or a hypothesis is purely foolish. This debate cannot even be taken seriously.

FYI: proper scientific definitions:

Hypothesis: An explanation of documtented facts that is proposed for experimental and observable testing.

Theory: An explanation of documented facts that is confirmed through repeated testing and observation. It makes accurate predictions that confirm the results of empirical testing.

Examples of scientific theories:

Heliocentric theory
Flight
Gravity
Forensics
Evolution
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Oh that. It's just a format which I like to follow for debates. It mimics the format which Singapore follows. Like, whenever we debate on a topic, we usually say something like 'This House Believes That National Service is too boring.'. If you agree with the statement, you're the proposition and if you disagree, you're the opposition.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
What House are you talking about
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Oops, I forgot to cite the sources for the definitions. Here you go:

(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
This house doesn't agree.
No votes have been placed for this debate.