The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
rwebberc
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points

evolution is illegal to teach in 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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,226 times Debate No: 1656
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (25)

 

firemonkey6775

Pro

simple evolution is not scientifically provable and there for is just a relgion and it is wrong for it to be taught in public school.
rwebberc

Con

Before we begin, let me point out that the Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas established that to outlaw the teaching of evolution is in violation of the First Amendment. So you've kinda already lost in that regard. But on to the real spirit of the debate.

Evolution is both theory and fact at the same time. Observed changes in organisms over time have been proven. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org...) The question is how exactly those changes came about. Gravity is, in fact, also a theory. Does my opponent also want the teaching of gravity to be illegal? Both evolution and gravity are taught in schools under there current theories. That is to say, there is currently no other scientifically acceptable alternative. This is simply a part of science.

My opponent's next claim is that evolution has not yet been scientifically proven and is therefore a religion. As I have previously stated, theories are almost universally accepted explanations among the scientific community for certain facts, or observations. This is a part of science and that is why evolution is taught in SCIENCE class. But let's take a look at the definition of religion, shall we?

Religion
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I presume my opponent would say that religion falls into the last, and most dubious, definition of a religion. By this definition football or basketball are religions, and should not be taught in P.E. class. But even this classification is a stretch. The only reason evolution is so passionately defended is because it is so vehemently opposed by those in the religious community.

As I have shown, evolution, like gravity, is a widely accepted explanation for a set of facts. It is not a religion, as my opponent claims. No one worships evolution or uses it as a set of guiding moral principles. As the Supreme Court has proven, it is most certainly legal to teach it. I believe the burden is now squarely on my opponent's shoulders to come up with some shocking new evidence that proves otherwise.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Pro

i am sorry i have so far screwed up this debate but here we go

ok what i want taken out of the schools is the teaching of fakes in most of the schools such things as lucy or neanderthal man (sorry i have really bad spelling) and other things that have been disproven time and time again to be taken out i dont want to pay for them to be taught as yet they are still lies. Ok if you do have facts to evolution that have not been disproven yet (the big bang is not evolution so i do not want to hear about microwave radiation.) i do not mind if you put it in the text books. but still evolution is yet a theory that is not genrally belived cause yet again one third (that is a billion christians and a billion muslims then a suposed amount from other relgions to make up any other deficet you point out) or more of the worlds population can not see this please dont tell me this is because we are a bunch of blind morons i dont want to hear it some of us are open idiots i understand but there are some true genieus among us. ok now it is my turn to post a definition this is a definition for science

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.

ok lets highlight a couple of things here number one uses the word laws not theories number two says observations and no one has observed evolution on a macro scale micro evolution may be a fact and i know a humans immune system does become more advanced and other virus and germs devlope singal new gene.
any how if your so right and evolution is a fact you know whay you are calling me is a monkey plus time or a fish plus time or slime plus time there you go.
rwebberc

Con

rwebberc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Firemonkey argued from the point of view of a monkey who has yet to evolve...
Posted by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
here's an idea...

anyone who doesn't believe evolution should be taught in school can send their kids to a private religious school/institution.

I grow tired of flighting for something that is so freaking obvious....but I'll never stop....bring it on you freaks.
Posted by steveperry 9 years ago
steveperry
Impact, the reason you can't convince anyone is because you don't have any evidence. You can't just go around making claims like that to back up your side and expect everyone to believe you.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
beem0r, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you can't convince me that miracles don't exist, nor can you convince me that creation doesn't have backing. And apparently I can't convince any of you. I don't know why I bother trying.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
impact:
Has anyone ever heard of Zeus? He didn't exist. Neither do miracles. The ones that do aren't miracles, since they follow the laws of physics.

Also, no one's saying creation has been disproved. We're saying it has no scientific evidence to back it.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
I sincerely apologize for forfeiting the final round, my 2 day drive back to school was poorly timed.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
I'm not going to get into the "evolution hasn't been disproved and creation has" debate because no matter what anyone says, you won't change your mind. Let me just say this, if God had wanted us to know everything, there wouldn't be any room for faith, thus no room for God, because we would already know all the answers.
One more note, it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist, than it is to believe in creation. Has anyone ever heard of a miracle? Seems a lot simpler doesn't it?
Posted by NonZeroBubble 9 years ago
NonZeroBubble
It is defiantly scientifically proved. we have so much evidence from fossils, early organism and such, it would be stubborn to not admit that god hasn't created us. So much evidence to the point where it is proved or very close to it that to deny evolution would be ignorant and in denial of the truth. The is no evidence whatsoever that god "created" of from thin air with is magical powers. The theory of evolution is %100 legit and completely true. TOns of more evidence coming everyday, denial of the obvious is like denying global warning even 'after the inconvenient truth movie (but that's for another debate)
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
impact, evolution has not been disproved. If it had, it would no longer be a theory.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
Why is it that NO ONE seems to understand what "theory" means in the context of the scientific method? Hint: saying that "it's only a theory" in this context is silly; in science, a "theory" is as good as it ever gets in terms of an explanation. In fact, it is ALMOST as silly as claiming that any form of creationism is "scientific."

And if you'd care to debate any of that - bring it on.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by skizzils 9 years ago
skizzils
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by coutinho 9 years ago
coutinho
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mahjonga 9 years ago
mahjonga
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
firemonkey6775rwebbercTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03