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

This House would have Creationism be taught in 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,092 times Debate No: 46796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (2)




Greetings and salutations, everyone! I would like to extend everyone a warm welcome to this debate, today! Let's have a warm, entertaining, interesting, and powerful debate.

Full motion: This House would have Christian, Young-Earth Creationism (CYEC) be taught in public schools - as a valid science (or branch, thereof) - alongside the theory of evolution.

Please note the full motion, as arguing against evolution in this debate will not support your case, as you go against the motion. Also, semantics to a ridiculous level should be considered bad conduct and it is up to the voters' discretion as to whether it has been breached.

CYEC: The belief that the Earth is <= (i.e. less than or equal to) 10,000 years old; the belief that the Earth was made in less than one Earth week; the belief that humans were created supernaturally in their current evolutionary stage (i.e. homo sapien sapien), or their previous one (i.e. homo sapien); the rejection of UCA (i.e. Universal Common Ancestry); the belief that the story of "Noah's Ark" as told in The Bible is 100% accurate. (Excluding minor translation errors).

Every CYE Creationist is different and this might not be your total belief, or it might misrepresent your beliefs. If this is so, please let me know in the comments. Failure to do so will mean that you are defending a position you do not believe; which is playing Devil's Advocate; which is a 7-point concession to me. Therefore, please check carefully!

Round Structure: Round 1 will be for the lay out of the motion by Con and acceptance by Pro. No argument will be given by Pro, nor Con, in Round 1.

Round 2 will be for opening contentions only. No rebuttals or counter-contentions can be given.

Round 3 will be for rebuttals only. No supporting, new, or introducing/defending of [new] contentions can be given.

Round 4 will be for defence of contentions and counter-contentions (i.e. a rebuttal of a rebuttal) only. No new rebuttals or contentions can be introduced.

Round 5 will be for everything the debaters wish, except for new contentions. No contentions can be introduced in Round 5.

Note that debaters can only introduce any and all contentions in Round 2. This might seem restricting, but forces people to think things through, be dedicated, and be thorough in their argument(s). This debate will not be light; it is serious.

Voting point distribution: All points for the voters will be as usual, with one exception. The "spelling and grammar" point is normally taken far too literally, in my opinion. While it is useful to penalise debaters for bad S&G, this only happens - usually - if the person's first language isn't English.

Therefore, for this debate, I want to try something different. If you vote and decide to give the S&G point to a player, you must take into consideration the presentation of the argument.

i) Posting a round as a forum (quoting whole paragraphs of your opponent's previous round at a time 'till you drop dead or run out of characters) will lose the S&G point.
ii) Other general lack of presentation, as oppose to just S&G, will lose the S&G point.

You agree to this by voting. If you do not agree to it or are otherwise undecided, please do not give away the S&G point to either debater. I am trying something for a personal endeavour and will not debate it, here.


1) The burden of proof (BoP) will be shared between both Con and Pro. Just giving arguments or just giving rebuttals will not be enough to win the debate.

2) Forfeit(s) of a round will lose the conduct point; forfeit(s) of a round will only lose the conduct point. Voters who give a full 7-point victory to a player for forfeit(s) alone are vulnerable to vote bombing in this debate.

3) Sources will be given for every significant claim made. If a debater feels that a source is not appropriate or unsuitable to support the claim, s/he may point it out. The other debater can respond to iff (NOTE: "iff" = "if and only if) it is in the next round and is brief. A prolonged debate on the sources will be considered bad conduct and it will be up to the voters' discretion.

4) There may not be "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" given at the end of the debate, unless one of the debaters conceded the debate.

5) The debate must remain on the "Debate Rounds (x)" tab, and not be taken to the comments for extra argument space, concerns, or sources. Anything which does end up there can be ignored by both the voters and debaters once the debate has started.

6) No arguments involving relativity and the age of the Earth may be given under any circumstances. If an argument about the age of the Earth and relativity is presented by either Pro or Con, the other debater will receive all seven points.

This debate should be impossible to accept. Therefore, if you wish to debate me, please post a comment expressing interest. If you wish to post a comment which expresses interest, you must meet the following criteria:

1) You must have at least one, three-round debate in the (Post-) Voting Period.
2) You must not be a Devil's Advocate.

If you accept this debate without my consent in the comments, you forfeit all points to me. Should this happen and a voter gives any point to Pro, they have no justified RFD.

That's all, folks! Please bear in mind, this debate may sound really strict, but it is just thorough. I've had far too many muck-ups from both myself and my opponents in the past for this to go wrong. Not today! :D If you have any questions, wish to express your interest in debating me, or just want to tell us how eager you are to see this debate (as I'm sure you are! :O)), please feel free to post a comment!

Good luck to all. Allez!



I accept and look forward to debating this topic with you. I pray I can be a light to you and convince you the truth and beauty of creationism. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Many thanks to Pro for accepting this debate. As per the rules, I will present my contentions.

Contention One: Creationism is not a valid science

Something cannot be taught in science classes as a valid science if it is not scientific, particularly in this day and age. Therefore, unless Pro can show that all aspects of creationism are scientific and follow the scientific method, Pro hasn't upheld the burden of proof.

However, I will not just leave it at; that doesn't fill my burden of proof, either. So, allow me to give some contradicting evidence to creationism's assertions.

For a start, creationism, as defined above, claims that the Earth is less than or equal to 10,000 years of age. However, we can see this claim is not accurate, as there are multiple pieces of evidence which suggest otherwise.

Sub-Contention A1: Dendrochronology proves an Earth which is at least 10,001 years old

For the members of the audience which don't know what dendrochronology is, it is the scientific method of dating trees through tree-ring dating. [1] Using various methods which each support one another, dendrochronologists have found trees which are at least 12,000 years old [2] and are probably older. The oldest living organism is suspected to be the King Clone. Whether it is or isn't, though, it has been dated through dendrochronology (and radiocarbon dating) to be 11,700 years old. [3]

These two cases were dated with a reliable method, which means we have no reason to be skeptical of the results. This strongly suggests that the Earth is over 10,000 years old.

What does this show us which is relevant to the debate? It disproves an aspect of creationism, making it not wholly scientific. The conclusion logically follows; we shouldn't teach creationism as a valid science, when it is not.

Sub-Contention B1: Creationism cannot climb back

By this, I mean creationism cannot simply change its definition, as it would go against itself. (On a sub note, this would also mean arguing against a straw-man, because you'd be arguing against something which, in this debate, isn't creationism, as defined).

Creationism's refusal to change in the light of contradicting evidence demonstrates another unscientific aspect of it; it isn't willing to change nor modify itself to fit the evidence. One of the best things about science is its acceptance of the evidence. It has to, by definition, accept the evidence and study it intently. Therefore, since creationism doesn't do this, it is not a science and shouldn't be taught as such.

Sub-Contention C1: Creationism is unfalsifiable

As creationist themselves sometimes call out to evolution's defenders: If something is unfalsifiable, it is not science, nor is it scientific. My definition of creationism doesn't mention any god. However, it does state that humans were created supernaturally by something. (This is usually God). Now, maybe Pro can rebut me thoroughly, but I propose that creationism is not falsifiable.

How can we disprove a god or underlying supernatural force created humans? How can we disprove the idea that God, for some reason, made it look really convincing that the Earth is over 10,000 years, but it is really not?

We can't. This hard truth is yet another aspect of creationism which is unscientific. Each of my three sub-contentions support my main one which all culminates into one truth: Creationism is not scientific, nor anything valid of science, and, therefore, cannot be taught in science classes as a valid science.

Contention 2: Evolution and creationism contradict each other

Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that creationism is a valid science. This presents a huge problem right off the bat, though. Creationism states that humans didn't evolve from another species of animal; evolution states that we did. [4]

Note how this debate is set up; Pro is for teaching both evolution and creationism as science in schools. But, there is no logical reason to do so. Even the concepts behind it contradict each other and cannot both be correct!

Therefore, we shouldn't teach both evolution and (not nor) creationism in schools, because they present logical contradictions.


I have presented all of my contentions for this debate. Two mains ones, of which one has three sub-contentions. Effectively, I have four points which Pro has to address. My burden of proof has been filled, assuming my arguments are sound.

Pro will now get his chance to give his opening contentions. Before he does, however, I would like to point out a couple of things:

(1) I haven't attacked every single claim creationism makes. However, this doesn't mean Pro doesn't have to defend them. They appear in the definition, so Pro has to uphold his burden of proof by addressing them.

(2) People have criticized my debate on the ground that it gives a ridiculously easy victory for me, implying I am making this debate for more victories, Elo, etc... I am not doing this debate for victory (though I will graciously accept it if it comes!), but to give people a chance to express their views. Many people have called for creationism to be taught in schools because it's scientific; teach the controversy, etc... This is their chance, and I am very thankful to Pro for offering to defend their voices.

So, please, even if you think it is a hard win for Pro to achieve, that's not the point. The point is for both sides to express their views, peer-review them, as it were, so both sides may modify, refine, or drop and pick up views as they come. I think that's the point of debate in the first place.

To borrow the Scandinavian phrase: One thousand thanks to Pro for accepting, and I am eager to hear his argument(s) in this round! Until round three, then.






TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I am (frankly) too annoyed to say anything, at this point. Please, come back.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


MysticEgg forfeited this round.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I half hoped my opponent was a "n00b sniper" and he would show his arguments if he thought I was lost to the debate as well. Worse luck. Oh well. Thanks, audience.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
TannerJK, you have my permission to accept this debate. :) Remember, suggest any changes to the definition of CYEC before you accept.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
@Tulbakra Such'll go far.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
@YYW We're both against it being taught in science classes? If so, I don't think we can debate this one...yet. :D
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
@YYW We're both against it being taught in science classes? If so, I don't think we can debate this one...yet. :D
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
@Hematite12 I'm not, but I'm worried about it becoming too general. I could do one on general religion, later.

@Garret How so? It is belief, yes? So it doesn't factually contradict anything. Also, if that is what Creationism is, then so be it. :P

@Garret Damn. Why don't you support public schools?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
I would take this debate if only I supported the concept of public schools.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
"the belief that humans were created supernaturally in their current evolutionary stage (i.e. homo sapien sapien)"

This statement's wording requires a concession to the Evolutionist position before the debate even begins. You may want to change that.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
Still willing to take this if we can stipulate that it not be taught in science classes....
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Sure, but the point remains that religion is inherently unscientific. Again, :

If you associate what you're talking about at all with a specific religion, why deny other religions to force that their beliefs on the origins of the universe to be taught in public schools?

I misunderstood about the devil's advocate thing.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
@subgenius I appreciate the ridiculous position some people hold just as much as the next guy. :D While I don't think the definition given to be defensible, I know that some people do disagree. I'll give them this chance to defend their position. Also, I did mention that people can ask me to change their definition, should they want to.

@Zaradi It is something that I am against; it's part of my philosophy of debate. I'll gladly explain it to you in full via PM, if you' like to know more.

@Hematite12 In regards to your first and second questions, it is because some of my points revolve around the Christian faith specifically. Also, I wouldn't want the debate to become too general.

I am not playing Devil's Advocate. If I was, I would be OK with it in debating, yes? Also, see my point to Zaradi.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by etherealvoyager 3 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF