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

This House believes Creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools (

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/8/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,452 times Debate No: 31093
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




As it states in the title from my observations and research on the topic of creationism I do not believe it is a productive form of education for young people (who are in Primary, Secondary Schools, College and University)

I am basing my observations from what I have seen from representatives such as PPsimons cooperation, Creationtoday and more.

I will be making two points in total and a summary (will expand upon the points in the next round)

1) Creationism bias creates conflict
2) Unsubstantiated conclusions

Creationism is a very biased form of education. I fear if creationism were to be promoted it would promote discrimination and prejudice amongst communities. For example Creationism is often viewed as a Christian orientated point of view to promote the belief in their god. Whereas people with different beliefs would feel isolated and ostracised for believing in something else. It is not an all-inclusive process of education. It doesn't promote all religions it only promotes the Christian Faith

Another point I would like to make is how Creationism only states what is rather than how it is. The topic never explains the cause and effect relationships between how their particular god created everything. It merely makes unsubstantiated assumptions without backing their claims up with any verifiable evidence. In the end any one can claim to have a revelation from a higher being but they would need to prove it like any other claim. I could claim the spaghetti monster created the universe but no one should believe that simply because I cannot justify it.

I would like to end with a summary regarding how I am have no problem with people having an individual belief in a deity my only problem is when people hijack it as an excuse to impose their beliefs.

Thank you very much for reading and I look forward to hear a response from you through a comment or from the counter argument


To fix a problem you must first understand what the problem is. John Stewart Mill once argued that the conflict of ideas will always result in a more productive society. Because I fundamentally agree with his stance, I will oppose this resolution.

My opponent delineates four areas in which he does not believe that teaching creationism is productive. These areas are primary schools, secondary schools, public colleges, and public universities. In order to oppose the resolution I will argue that teaching creationism is productive in public colleges and universities.

I will also take productive to mean, "net beneficial for the well being of society".

My Arguments:

1. Brainwashing Bad:
The problem with not ever teaching creationism occurs through the lack of conflict that children/students experience. For many people, we'll take christians as an example, growing up did not involve an education in contradictory viewpoints. A childhood education on the topic of "where do we come from" might involve church once a week, some filler from the parents, and a glossed over unit on evolution in 7th grade. My opponent points out, rightfully so, that there is very little verifiable evidence supporting the Christian view of creationism. However, as a child who is continually fed that viewpoint from authority figures, it is difficult to recognize the logical fallacies behind creationism. To counter this trend Universities and public colleges ought to offer courses on creationism, or which feature creationism. This allows a conflict of ideas to occur within each classroom. It inevitably promotes a discussion in which conflicting viewpoints are exchanged, and it circulates new ideas throughout the populace. From this type of education students are better able to make more educated decisions on what they believe. And, as a bonus, they become more aware of how other people think about the issues (more on this later). My opponent, who points out that he is an atheist in the comments, has doubtlessly already considered the logical fallacies inherent in creationism. But that doesn't mean his experience is generally applicable to everyone. For many, an education on the topic, and the conflict of idea it incurs are invaluable novel viewpoints.

2. Cultural Understanding Good:
The second point I will pursue is that cultural understanding is beneficial towards mitigating violence. Since creationism makes up a large part of American Culture (see: churches) it is useful to understand the concept. Insight into the teaching of creationism allows our politicians to gauge how people will react to legislation. Cultural insight tells us how people will react and often why. Understanding creationism allows religious education majors to distinguish the differences between core values of societies. With this knowledge, they can act as advisors to christian world leaders who must negotiate with non-christian world leaders on a weekly basis. Such knowledge helps mitigate core value misunderstandings, and better fosters international peace. It can be used to stem misunderstandings and ultimately prevent violence.

My Opponents Arguments:

1. Creationism Promotes Discrimination
>>It definitely does. And so does every other root belief that societies hold. People have a problem with concepts they don't understand, that they perceive as different, and they that otherize. But under that logic we ought to ban all root belief concepts from schools. We should stop teaching cultural education for all cultures. We should stop teaching economic doctrines (wouldn't want those Keynesians fighting the Austrians). We shouldn't teach principles of the democratic or republican party (because they might discriminate against the people who believe in the other party). In the future we'll steer clear of english language education, because promoting that might ostracize people who were raised with a different first language. We'll just make sure conflict doesn't exist in school anymore.

But the thing is, creationism is still going to exist in society, even if we take it away from school. It will exist because over 75% of Americans attend church. And so the question becomes, how do we mitigate the discrimination which creationism promotes? Since discrimination is caused by a lack of understanding, the best way fight it is by fostering understanding. If we teach creationism in schools we promote a discussion between people who believe and don't believe in the doctrine. And even if, at the end of the day, people still don't agree with each other at least they know the logic behind the other beliefs. The world without creationism being taught in schools is one where that gap is never bridged. It is a society in which people continue to discriminate against each other because they do not understand each other. But the world where creationism is taught, at least promotes some level of understanding between disparate groups.

2. Unsubstantiated Conclusions
>>Creationism certainly does include a variety of unsubstantiated conclusions. However, teaching creationism does not necessitate that schools mandate students belief in the doctrine. Like any good school curriculum, creationist teaching should include overviews of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the doctrine. Let's run a quick analogy... In present day society we teach that around 1564 people believed the galaxy was heliocentric (revolving around the sun). However, this curriculum provides a brief synopsis on how Galileo Galilei countered the prevailing thought. So while we presently teach about an unsubstantiated claim, we also point out that it is unsubstantiated. This is true of many facets of our public education. Much of economic theory includes disparate opinions that are unsubstantiated. Philosophy is an even more extreme case, Plato would have us believe in the forms. Ultimately teaching unsubstantiated doctrines is useful because it lets us, as a society, examine the faults. We can use the knowledge of unsubstantiated doctrines to create more substantiated doctrines. Without teaching about them, such a conflict never occurs, and so we stagnate with the spotty ideas we have.

3. Misc Fallacies
>>I want to point out that teaching creationism does not preclude teaching other religious forms of thought. For instance, when teaching a collegiate religious education class, the professor is not banned from teaching Islam if he/she has previously taught about creationism.

My Opponents Burden:

1. As per the resolution my opponent is going to have to make a compelling case against teaching creationism in K-12 schools, public universities, and public colleges. I'm betting it will be very difficult to make a compelling argument for why religious education majors should be deprived an education of this doctrine.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has made 2 points that I would to like to counter and I would like to counter the points he has made as a rebuttal to my arguments.

1)Reality > Brainwashing

My opponent has not explained clearly enough what he/she means by brainwashing. According the Oxford English Dictionary Brainwashing means "the imposition of a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs".

My opponent has not understood what a productive form of education is and how the curriculum of Creationism promotes effective working skills students can transfer into their later development. Teaching Creationism is a form of Brainwashing. It has been used in a collection of Evangelical churches who have promoted the most ridiculous concepts without any evidence to support their claims. Creationism isn't worthy for a school debate because it would be equivalent of proposing how Micky Mouse created the universe because since there is no evidence to support it.

I understand a conflict of ideas can be very useful however Creationism isn't worthy of discussion in classrooms simply because it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions which my opponent has agreed with in his prior argument. Ideas are valued by their application and creationism doesn't demonstrate any form of application to develop the skills of a student in Primary and Secondary schools, College or University. Unless my opponent proves otherwise I have no reason to believe there is any application for Creationism to be taught. As I would like to place emphasis on teaching Creationism would be the equivalent of teaching Micky Mouse being responsible for creating the Universe. It doesn"t present any value for a discussion in schools of education.

The reason I have brought it up for debate on this site is so clarifications can be made regarding certain points of view and to illustrate a more vivid picture for the reasons why Creationism has no application in an educational system.

For an educational system to be productive the students must have developed skills they can transfer into their lives to contribute to an all-inclusive society.

2)Creationism does not promote Cultural Understanding
My opponent"s second point regards how Creationism can contribute to a Cultural Understanding to prevent violence. I agree regarding to understanding the perspective of certain points of view however Creationism has contributed to many conflicts. Take the Wesboro Baptist Church for example. They adopt the Creationist position and claim it to be the literal word of the Christian God. They adopt this position and openly discriminate and promote prejudice against individuals who believe otherwise. This has hugely influenced the young people who are in the Church. They have not just openly expressed their prejudice against others but have often engaged into violence. This is one of the many examples of how the literal interpretation of the Bible as proposed by Creationism. I can also give reference to the Crusades of the Christians who had engaged in open war to fight over their beliefs with other cultures and religions.
My rebuttal to his rebuttal

1)My opponent"s rebuttal to my point regarding creationism ignores how I have given reference to Creatiotoday and PPSiomons who act as advocates of the Creationist belief. The have demonstrated no thought for discussion or care for opposing views (view their channel for videos to review this point). My opponent has ignored the fact of Creationism teaches young people to create an unfair bias against others who share different beliefs. Creationist education promotes unfair treatment of one person or a group, usually because of their prejudice about race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. I can give reference to the abuse the female gender has suffered due to the literal interpretations of the Bible as well as the fact it played a huge role when authorities promoted slavery and racial discrimination which is still a problem today in societies.

Not once have I suggested we should get rid of the belief in God. I believe it should be reserved as a personal belief rather than people imposing it above and beyond everyone else especially when they claim to be speaking the word of an authority figure without justification.

2)My Opponents second rebuttal is a response to the point I made regarding Creationism being based on unsubstantiated assumptions. The curriculum of Creationism claims to be the literal interpretation of God and the ultimate truth. I agree with my opponents how discussing about unsubstantiated assumptions can prove to be useful however from the representatives I have presented do not demonstrate any understanding to opposing views and beliefs. Creatioinism as I have mentioned a few times teaches the literal interpretation of God"s word from the Bible. Judging from what I have read of their curriculum it does not offer any other points of view.

My opponent goes on to make a third rebuttal regarding Creationism does not just how the Christian God created the Universe. It teaches a more deistic position. Meaning how it proposed a whole range of religions in their curriculum. I have reviewed the teachings of the schools who teach Creationism and I have not seen this presented at all. As you can see from the comments a deistic position I have outlined is promoted through "Intelligent design" which basically claims a god was responsible for the Big Bang and all of the other processes involved in the creation of the universe that science has discovered. Creationism claims to be the literal word of God. As I have presented Creationtoday promote Creationism and they have not presented any other religions in their proposed curriculum in fact they demonize other beliefs such as Islam, the Jewish faith and more.

The burden of proof for my opponent is to provide us with conclusive and examined evidence of how Creationism can help a young person develop skills they can use to contribute to the progress of society. My opponent will also have to review the responses I made to his arguments and rebuttals and demonstrate why I am wrong.

I look forward to the response.


Round 2, fight.

1. Save the brainwashed
My opponent is feeding my analysis with his arguments, he just hasn't realized it yet. He states, "Creationism is a form of Brainwashing. It has been used in a collection of Evangelical churches who have promoted the most ridiculous concepts." I agree. He then goes on to state, "Creationism isn't worthy for a school debate because is would be equivalent of proposing how Micky Mouse created the universe." Right again, insofar as it would be a pretty one sided debate, wouldn't it?

But that's my point. I'm articulating that many people in our society are brainwashed (by evangelical churches) from a young age. They grow up being told by authority figures that creationism is true. And so, without any form of debate, without any conflict of ideas, they believe it. The academic debate that would occur from this discussion, albeit one sided, is a chance for them to witness the conflict. It is perhaps one of the first times that many people experience a dissenting opinion on the matter. And so, this type of education is invaluable because it allows people who were previously brainwashed a chance to think for themselves.

I understand my opponent's viewpoint. He sees this issue from the viewpoint of an atheist looking in at the religious world. I however attended a small catholic based liberal arts college. And so, although I am also an atheist, I was able to witness how my catholic friends responded to these debates. For some, these classroom debates simply ended with them walking away in disbelief, but for many others logic was a compelling force. When creationism is presented in a collegiate setting many people realize that it is tantamount to proposing that Micky Mouse created the universe. It is this realization that can help many people who never before questioned the topic.

My opponent states that, "creationism doesn't demonstrate any form of application to develop the skills of a student in ... College or University." I seriously doubt his position. He previously argued that creationism is a form of brainwashing. My argument with therefor be that people questioning creationism is a form of critical thinking. The conflict of ideas promotes a skill set which allows people to reconsider the world for themselves. It promotes logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. Furthermore it gives people a tool set useful for deconstructing world views based on unsubstantiated claims.

Finally, remember that my opponent thinks that more creationist thinkers leads to more discrimination and prejudice in the world. My educating those thinkers, and allowing them to reconsider their world view, there is only a chance for less discrimination and prejudice.

2. Cultural Understanding
My opponents argument suffers from a massive lack of uniqueness. That is to say, even if creationism wasn't taught in schools, the same impacts would still occur. Why would this be true? Because churches and the bible still exist. It's not as if when we stop teaching creationism in schools, suddenly churches and bibles pop out of existence. Rather, a world without creationism in schools is still a world where it is taught in churches and through the bible. And so, whatever terrible impacts my opponent can foresee still happen with or without schools being involved.

However, I'm making some pretty intuitive arguments in section 1 as to why this type of education in school would actually combat creationist thought. So, in reality, a world with creationism being taught in colleges and public universities is a world with less of the problem.

But, my opponent is making a few more fundamental errors in this section. He suggests that creationism is a major contributing reason for conflict generation. I'll say it isn't so. The same sort of conflict could just as easily be generated if the westboro bapsist church strongly believed in the Koran, Buddhism, or even the flying spaghetti monster. Conflicts occur because of a misunderstanding between a subject and who they identify as the "other". The subject cannot rationalize the thoughts of another, and so believes the "other" to be an illogical entity. The conclusion (both from the crusades, and the westboro baptist church) is that the subject must use radical force in order to change the "others" perceptions.

And that is why teaching the subject at universities and public colleges is advantageous. First it allows the subject to understand some of the viewpoints of the "other" through the conflict of ideas which occurs. Second, it allows the other to understand the viewpoints of the subject, which opens a better pathway of communication between the two. Third, it facilitates a moderated discussion between the two parties which is way better than the status quo (see: Westboro Baptist church yelling at funerals). Ultimately it allows both sides to view the thought process behind their respective positions. Although this might not change minds it seriously cuts either party viewing the other as in illogical entity and therefor inhibits otherization. Since creationism is already a rampant part of American society, facilitating more understanding has a serious chance of decreasing the violence that my opponent isolates.

Opponents Arguments:

1. Discrimination
a. Creatiotoday and PPSiomons still exists in a world without creationism being taught in schools. Which means creationism is still being taught to the general public.
b. My opponent says they don't care for opposing thought. That's probably a reason why introducing the subject, in a context where opposing thoughts are valued, is useful.
c. My opponent argues that creationist education is promoting violence and discrimination against women / other races. This is probably a reason why we should teach creationism in a setting where other viewpoints are also interrogated. Not only could we deconstruct those biases but we could aid people who grew up with only that myopic viewpoint.
d. Finally my opponent talks briefly about keeping god as personal belief. That stance is not mutually exclusive with teaching about creationism in school. You can simultaneously teach a subject without imposing it on others. This is why schools are a pretty useful median for the subject.

2. Unsubstantiated Conclusions:
a. My opponent briefly argues that the representatives of creationism (Creatiotoday and PPSimons) don't understand opposing views. I'll say that's correct, and it's because that is their job. Those organization are trying to sell people on a philosophy, on a way to live their lives. Universities are intrinsically different, because their goal is to educate people and not to tell them how to live their lives. My arguments about considering opposing viewpoints therefor remains uncontested. Teaching the topic through universities and colleges only has a risk of undoing the harms that Creatiotoday and PPSimons are perpetuating. Extend the arguments I've been making. Schools can teach creationism and any other subjects, they are not stuck just teaching creationism. For instance, my collegiate theology class contained a two week section on creationism and then started a unit about Islam.

3. No way out - lets recap.
a. Creationism is still going to be taught without schools teaching it. Which means my opponents harms will always occur.
b. Schools have a chance of seriously alleviating the problem via promoting understanding and fighting brainwashing.
c. Even if I lose all the previous points, somehow, my opponent doesn't address that religious ed majors should be taught creationism. Nor does he address the arguments about how this leads to political peace. Even winning this one point proves that creationism is productive, at least in some facet, in public schools.

Debate Round No. 2


Face palm

But that's my point. I'm articulating that many people in our society are brainwashed (by evangelical churches) from a young age. They grow up being told by authority figures that creationism is true. And so, without any form of debate, without any conflict of ideas, they believe it. The academic debate that would occur from this discussion, albeit one sided, is a chance for them to witness the conflict. It is perhaps one of the first times that many people experience a dissenting opinion on the matter. And so, this type of education is invaluable because it allows people who were previously brainwashed a chance to think for themselves.

You have missed the point completely
It is not worthy for our resources to waste on simply because it is the equivalent of debating whether Micky Mouse created the Universe. If we accept Creationism into the Curriculum we would have to accept the most bizarre concepts as well. I agree we need to debate ideas like this otherwise I wouldn"t be here. It is so our resources can be funded on something more useful and to act as an influence to encourage people to think of it from this perspective

Finally, remember that my opponent thinks that more creationist thinkers leads to more discrimination and prejudice in the world. My educating those thinkers, and allowing them to reconsider their world view, there is only a chance for less discrimination and prejudice.
Yes I do promote debate and a conflict of ideas but creationism has an awful history of creating bigotry and single mindedness which can create misconcptions in young minds. Like I mentioned the Wes Boro Baptist church act as perfect examples of the impact of the literal teachings of the Bible.

2. Cultural Understanding- response

My opponents attempts to discredit my point regarding PPSIMONS and Creationtoday. He says that is there business. The organisations have both claimed to promote Human Services for the benefit of society. As mentioned in my previous argument they do anything but. They do not promote any useful skills for young people to transfer into their later development and do not offer anything of use the general public. If they did they would be able to fund themselves and not rely on donations for funding.

Yes I understand creationism is no doubt going to be taught to individuals through home schools or in private circumstances but much like bullying or crime which is an inevitable factor I am taking a responsibility to decrease it so for the vast majority (99.9%) of people to gain a more productive form of education to solve problems.
I agree schools should encourage these life skills to young people to make sure they are not subjected to brainwashing however young people should be aware of the techniques used by these kinds of individuals
I have addressed why Creationism should not be taught in Education in general. I have no problem with Religious studies it is the topic of Creationism which is on debate. I think my opponent may have misunderstood the differences between the two.

My opponent has not given any evidence to suggest Creationism would provide a productive form of education and has failed to give any examples of anyone who has benefited from the education as a result.


My opponent only tries to dispute a few of my arguments while dropping the vast majority of them. I will address his concerns and then extend my conceded arguments.

My Opponents Concern's:
1. He once again states that creationism is not worthy because it is the equivalent of discussing Micky Mouse. The difference in this case is that large swaths of society believe in creationism while large swaths of society do not believe in Micky Mouse. The advantage to having an academic discussion is via providing students with a non-religious affiliated viewpoint from which to evaluate the matter. My opponent actually agrees that arguing about this is productive, which is an indication that it would also be so in an academic setting. Finally he states that accepting creationism into the curriculum means that we have to accept the most bizarre concepts as well. This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Teaching creationism does not at all mandate that we must teach other "bizarre concepts". Keep in mind that I'm arguing that children are brainwashed and need access to the opposite viewpoint. An academic perspective is the ideal way for them to attain a viewpoint from which to think for themselves.

2. Next my opponent argues that creationism promotes discrimination and prejudice but completely ignores my root cause argumentation. I isolate in the previous speech that misunderstandings and otherization lead to discrimination and prejudice. I also mention these things will happen regardless of schools teaching creationism because religious institutions already do so. Which means that we can only hope to combat the misunderstandings and otherization by demonstrating the logic behind each viewpoint. This can occur through academics, in a moderated environment, where all sides of the issue are examined. This has a massive advantage over a purely religious based viewpoint because it is not myopic.

3. Pro returns to the arguments about PPSIMONS and Creationtoday. These arguments are not useful in a world where my root cause arguments remain unaddressed. PPSIMMONS and Creationtoday have no incentive to offer opposing viewpoints. They are attempting to "sell" or convince an audience of a viewpoint. This one sided approach to education is what creates the hatred, discrimination, and prejudice. Meanwhile, schools are academic settings which promote a balanced education. They are ideal at examining multiple sides of an issue and looking at the logic behind disparate viewpoints. Therefore schools can deconstruct the otherization that has occured through the one-sided teaching of creationism. Look, creationism doesn't create hatred. It's the means by which creationism is taught that creates hatred. If a human is raised believing that creationism is the only correct way to look at an issue then they otherize people with conflicting viewpoints. Teaching creationism in schools solves this problem because the methodology teaches the logic behind each conflicting viewpoint.

4. And finally, my opponent says that since creationism is inevitable we should take steps to stop it. I agree completely. When people arrive at college (straight from their private catholic high shcools or home schooling) they should be exposed to creationism in an academic setting. My opponent states, "I agree schools should encourage these life skills to young people to make sure they are not subjected to brainwashing however young people should be aware of the techniques used by these kinds of individuals." Exactly! The best way to prevent this brain washing is by teaching the subject from a non-religious affiliated medium (i.e. colleges and universites). This makes individuals "aware of the techniques" and promotes the conflicting viewpoints which allows them to make an educated decision. In the end it is the difference between a world which blindly believes creationism and a world which has the choice. Since my arguments about critical thought go untouched, I will continue to advocate that having the choice is preferable. Advancing critical thought and removing brainwashing are both productive for our society.

Conceded Arguments:
1. Creationism should be taught to religioius education majors in college. I give a plethora of reasons why this is true. My opponent concedes the point. This one instance disproves that "creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools". Hence I win this debate.

2. My arguments about the root cause of violence and hatred are not addressed. I'm making causality arguments for why the methodology of educating determines the outcomes. My opponent has not addressed these which indicates that I control the violence debate.

3. My opponent drops a series of arguments about the conflict of ideas promoting logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. This proves that creationism is "productive" in public schools.

4. Finally my opponent concedes my points about reverse violence. I say that non-religious thinkers do not understand the viewpoints of people who believe in creationism. Therefore otherization occurs and violence is inflicted on those thinkers. Teaching creationism through schools reverses this trend by allowing non-religious thinkers to interrogate the logical pathways. Thus creationism in schools reduces violence on two levels. First through creationist advocaters lashing out, and then through secular thinkers responding.

This concludes the constructive sections of this debate. From here on out we enter the rebuttals, where new arguments should be be considered. My opponent has one key argument in this debate. He says that becuase PPSIMONS and Creationtoday teach creationism poorly, public schools will also teach it poorly. I have suggested, and provided substantial logical analysis, that the methodology and intent of the institution is the determining factor in the outcomes. Academic settings are immune to the pitfalls of PPSIMONS and Creationtoday because they endeavor to teach conflicting viewpoints. My opponent has not once addressed this issue and so will face an extremely difficult challenge in his final speech.
Debate Round No. 3


What has this guy been smoking?

1. Creationism should be taught to religioius education majors in college. I give a plethora of reasons why this is true. My opponent concedes the point.

I have done so such thing. This is an awful misrepresentation of my arguments entirely

2. My arguments about the root cause of violence and hatred are not addressed. You have not explained what application the Creationist curriculum would provide to a civilised society.

I have given references to groups and individuals who have promoted and caused violent and offensive acts towards individuals because of their beliefs. As mentioned in my prior arguments wars have been caused by the conflict between religions who do not promote reasons or critical thinking.

3. My opponent drops a series of arguments about the conflict of ideas promoting logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. This proves that creationism is "productive" in public schools.

My opponent has basically conceded to the fact that logical awareness is necessary however again he has missed the fact that creationism is not a more productive idea than the invisible elephant in the room. He has responded by saying more people believe in a god than the idea I have proposed but that doesnt add to its validity. The world once believed the earth was flat. Now with verifiable evidence we are able to observe the Earth and recognise how it isn"t.

4. Finally my opponent concedes my points about reverse violence. I say that non-religious thinkers do not understand the viewpoints of people who believe in creationism.

After verifying many sources who promote creationism I and many individuals who are both religious and non- religious agree how a religious belief should be a personal thing and never be imposed onto an individual or group. My opponents has not responded to this point with any credibility.

My opponent has ignored the fact about how organisations like Creation today and PPsimons who promote creationism suggest they are a human service and are beneficial to society when they have not done a thing meaningful or productive in any shape or form.

My opponent needs to provide how verifiable evidence about the Creationist curriculum proposed and explain what it would be superior to the current curriculum and explain how the young people would develop skills they could transfer into their careers. This should be challenging for him because I have never had a reference to anyone who has ever demonstrated any useful skills as a result of Creationism.


I'll respond to my opponent's arguments in the order he presented them in the final round. To my knowledge, I have not smoked anything throughout duration of this debate. Also ad hominem attacks don't bolster a position.

1. My opponent argues that he has not conceded that religious education majors should be taught creationism. In round 4 he states that, "This is an awful misrepresentation of my arguments". However, in each previous round my opponent has made no response to my 'religious education major' argument despite the fact that I highlighted it as a key argument for this debate. Since I have given substantial analysis as to why religious education majors should be taught creationism (see round 2-3), and my opponenent has not responded, he has conceded the argument. The resolution states, "This house believes creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools". I have demonstrated one instance where it is a productive form of education, which disproves the resolution.

2. My opponent reasserts that creationism leads to violence. However, I have a response to this argument which he has never refuted. I argue throughout rounds 2 and 3 that creationism does not inherently lead to violence. Rather, it is the methodology through which creationism is taught that leads to violence. I delineate that PBSimmons and Creationtoday have a detrimental methodology while schools offer a beneficial methodology. Thus, creationism taught in shcools allows individuals to remove themselves from violence. This point is not refuted in my opponent's final speech. My opponent's examples are not relevant because they are not examples of creationism being taught in schools.

3. Con argues that creationism is not a productive idea. He says that more people beleiving in creationism does not add to it's validity. In this case it actually does add to my arguments validity. I make analysis throughout the debate arguing that teaching creationism in schools can remove people from a brainwashed state and give them logical awareness. Since so many people already believe in creationism, as taught through religious institutes, there are a great number of people who can be benefited from a scholastic education on the topic. It wouldn't make sense to teach about invisible elephants or Micky Mouse because people are not brain washed to believe those things are true. It makes sense to teach about creationism, and promote the conflict ideas, because so many people are brainwashed into thinking it is true.

Finally on this issue my opponent makes a reference to the earth being flat debate. This supports my case. The earth being flat was taught in schools which promoted a conflict of ideas. That conflict lead to people hypothesizing that the earth was indeed round and later proving it so. In much the same way, teaching creationism in schools allows people to reject the theory and hypothesize more plausible alternatives.

4. My opponent makes a brief extension of his argument, "religious belief should not be imposed." I have never once said it should be. I'm advocating that the topic be analyzed and debated in the classroom, not that teachers should force students to believe it. I have made analysis throughout the debate stating that the scholastic environment (especially in college) does not force students into belief systems. This is the reason it is unique from my opponent's examples.

Finally my opponent asks me to demonstrate how the creationist curriculum proposed is superior to the current curriculum. I would say that it is not. Creationism is already taught in religious education classes across the nation at the collegiate level. The proper question is, "why is a world where creationism is not covered, more beneficial than the status quo?" I think that I have made a compelling case for it not being more beneficial. Teaching creationism in select college classes is a definite advantage for the conflict of ideas that it promotes.

My opponent has arguments. Those arguments hinge on examples from PBSimmons and Creationtoday. I have informed the viewers that PBSimmons and Creationtoday teach creationism in a way which is not beneficial. I have also argued that schools teach it in a way which is beneficial. This distinction, which my opponent does not refute, is the crux of my case. So while creationism is probably not a productive form of education in religious institutions, it is a productive form of education in public colleges and universites. Thus, I urge a Pro ballot, and thank you for reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Although it is really hard to prove anything to anyone online. It says in the bible to search for him in faith, so I feel that those debates are lost causes.
Posted by emptywithoutbrain 4 years ago
If you are the one making the claim the burden of proof is always on you
It is your responsibility to substantiate the claim with verifiable evidence which are based on facts. Facts are often referenced from Scientific Websites which give references to studies and experiments to prove them. I don't think you understand how an argument works. It consists of three main elements. A claim a warrant (explanation) and evidence. To prove your argument you need to use all three.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
In all my debates about if God exist or not (I try to prove he does exist), it is always me trying to prove he does exist. I never get anyone trying to come up with reasons why he can't exist, except sometimes people use "facts" that have a very big chance of being wrong. Someone please send me a challenge that is about you trying to prove he doesn't exist. No situations or websites, etc. Use your own mind and do your own thinking.
Posted by Paulh 4 years ago
I would be glad to debate you. I don;t have a set topic so I'll debate something of your choice. Even if I disagree with my side I can still defend it extremely well. So submit a challenge when you're ready.
Posted by emptywithoutbrain 4 years ago
There are a few meanings of the word Bankai
Care to give reference to what you mean?
I am also aware you have accepted to debate me on this topic
I look forward to hear what you have to say :D
Posted by Yraelz 4 years ago
Posted by emptywithoutbrain 4 years ago
I am glad you see me that way. I do respect people for their beliefs but like I mentioned I do not appreciate it being imposed on me as if I have no choice. I am an Atheist myself and I have made a collection of videos on youtube regarding how I feel about certain individuals who claim to be the messengers of God. I basically tell them they are full of shite and need to do something more useful than behave like narcissistic fuckwhits. I guess we share similar positions regarding this topic

Perhaps you would like to raise a topic. What would you like to debate me on? I would be more than happy to take part :D
Posted by Paulh 4 years ago
i would've accepted until i noticed you showed that you understood the difference between creationism and intelligent design. i can agree that it should not be taught as creationism. they should teach (as some do) Intellligent design and then give a list of local/nearby (if none are truly local) plaaces of worship or places to find religious texts in order for the student to decide exactly what they believe.

For that matter, i would like to point out i am christian and believe something closer to creationism, accounting for a number of possibilities such as having a hand in evolution and "a day" in the begining being a billion years by modern standards. and also "a year" being much, much shorter, like how we view a month. also the possibility of God creating the evidence against him as not to pretty much force belief in him on anyone himself. he was giving an alternative possibility so you didnt believe out of it being the only option. this i only rrelevant as not to risk you believing that all christians are gonna think it should be taught. and that all christians are not in favor of bashing other religions or puting others down. Similarly i am ok with atheism. though i am strictly opposed to militant atheism (meaning they are forcing it on others) due to the effect it can have on their morals if forced to believe it (as in having them think that there's no long term consequence for their actions as it all goes out when dead, so they should do anything fun). you seem like a respecable atheist (assuming you are one, i know some who lie about their belief regardless as not to have people target them for their true beliefs) so i'd love to debate you on another topic.
Posted by emptywithoutbrain 4 years ago
Don't mind me asking what position you hold regarding this topic?
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
I'm aware of the difference between the two, but atheists tend to confuse them. That's why I asked, for clarification.
No votes have been placed for this debate.