Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Creation Should Be Taught As An Alternative Scientific Theory To Evolution 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,509 times Debate No: 59164
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (1)




I will be taking the Con side in this debate, as I consider that there is no reason to teach Creation as an alternative Scientific Theory to The Theory Of Evolution.
As I really don't consider it has the capability of being an Alternative Explanation For the Diversity Organisms.

I will be accepting anybody for the Pro position who is well versed in Creation concepts and evidence. As I'm very interesting in seeing what Creationists have recently discovered as evidences for their cause.

To: Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Lee Strobel, Ray Comfort and the Like, if you want to take the Pro side of this debate: Please Do!

I'd be interested to see what you have to offer this debate!

Best of luck to whoever wants to go Pro Creationism!



I accept this debate and will argue why schools SHOULD teach Creationism as an Alternative Scientific Theory with Evolution in science classes.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, Thanks Pro for agreeing to take part in this debate:

So lets get the ball rolling:

Firstly: What is Wrong with teaching Creationism in Science Class.

1: The Logic behind Creationism is not Scientific and does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Which confuses and obfuscates Science.

It teaches students the wrong way to approach Science, so is detrimental their education.


Scientific Method: Follows Inductive Reasoning.

If all premises are valid, then a valid conclusion can be deduced from those premises.

Creationist/Intelligent Design Method follows Circular Deductive Reasoning:

The Primary Premise is that a Designer exists.

The Secondary Premise is checked to see if it contains influence of a Designer as in deductive reasoning (set theory) the secondary premise must be a subset of the primary premise.

If there is no evidence of a Designer, the Secondary Premise is deemed False and discarded.

The Conclusion is that a Designer Exists.

The reasoning is entirely circular and thus it is a Begging The Question Fallacy, or Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

So teaching Creationism in Science classes is teaching the students that Fallacious Reasoning is okay, when in fact it is certainly not okay.

This teaching of fallacious thinking in Science has been demonstrated in final tests to lower the scientific literacy levels of classes teaching Creationism.

Which is something Britain has finally acted against by banning Creationism from all public funded education institutions, including academies and semi-private institutions.

In Britain, Religious Classes in those public funded institutions are not allowed to teach Creationism as Supported by Science. As this gives the same message that fallacious logic is okay in Science, when, truly it is not.

2: Creationism is not and never will be an alternative Scientific Theory to the Theory of Evolution.

A Scientific Theory can only be challenged by another Scientific Theory, so firstly Creationism needs to become a Scientific Theory if it wants to be an Alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

This requires Scientific Validation via the scientific method.

Evolution has already been validated, the causes for microevolution and macroevolution are already well known and they have been verified many times.

How Science verifies a Hypothesis ( not yet a Theory) is by trying to destroy it, and if it survives the attempts to destroy it ( testing by experiment and careful, clinical observation), then it becomes a Scientific Theory and every bit of evidence they tried to defeat the Hypothesis with, becomes a part of the Theory as Data and Laws.

Science has been trying to defeat Evolution for over 160 years now and nobody has found any evidence that defeats it. All evidence tried against it so far, has only served to make the Theory of Evolution Stronger.

Creationism on the other hand, has not passed any rigorous testing via the Scientific method, thus Creationism does not qualify as a Scientific Theory, and cannot be an alternative to Evolution until it does pass rigorous scientific evaluation and becomes a Valid Scientific Theory.

Currently, Creationism is only a Theological concept, as it is still using the fallacious circular reasoning mentioned previously which is the approach of religious apologetics not Science.

So Creationism must adopt the Scientific Method to prove Creation and this is almost an impossible task, because they would need to get rid of any Magician(s) or divine Creator, because Science cannot include Magic, because a scientific theory must always have predictable outcomes and including a Magician destroys any predictability completely. Since the Conclusion/Outcome depends on the whims of the Creator(s) which can change at any time, thus destroying any prediction made.

3: My third and not my final contention against teaching Creation in Science Classes is that the Evidence currently used to support Creationism is itself Invalid and Fallacious.

The latest Evidence pushed by Creationist's Pseudo-Scientists such as the invention of William A. Dembski is CSI or an acronym that only appears scientific because it was borrowed from a Science Based Crime Investigation television series with the same acronym.

Though in the Creationist world CSI means Complex Specified Information, which is some kind of Magic Wand that when a Creationist pseudo-scientist observes a complex organism he simply says, it is too complex to arrive from Evolution, so a Creator is involved.

This is again another Begging The Question, Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

Thus the Creationist/Intelligent Design, CSI methodology is totally Fallacious.

Proving that Creationists never could understand Science, nor the Scientific Method.

So, until they learn something about science and apply the Scientific Method to their Arguments instead of trying to use Trial By Media and Coercion by Politicians, to get their totally Unscientific arguments into Science Classes.

They do not deserve to have their current Unscientific Fallacies being taught as Scientific to students and thus disrupting their training in genuine, non-fallacious, intelligent, inductive reasoning.

Essentially, Creationism violates all the rules of Good Science, so it is actually

Best of Luck with your argument and rebuttals Pro!

I'm certain they will be very interesting.



Thank you Con,


1: The Logic behind Creationism is not Scientific and does not conform to the Scientific Method...Scientific Method: Follows Inductive Reasoning.

The Scientific Method uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. I will give the basic analysis of inductive vs. deductive:

Inductive: "Bottom Up" - Meaning general observations and measurements being to show a pattern in which you can create a hypothesis, and thoroughly test it into a theory.

Deductive: "Top Down" - Beings with a Hypothesis that you start to observe and test it to confirm the Hypothesis.

These are both valid methods as stated in the link:

Creationist/Intelligent Design Method follows Circular Deductive Reasoning.
..The reasoning is entirely circular and thus it is a Begging The Question Fallacy, or Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

My opponent is confusing Deductive Reasoning with Falsification. To give a simple example of his argument:
If have just discovered a new large body of water, and you want to know if fish live in it, you put a net in the water. You then pull it out and find no fish to be in the net.

You then can conclude no fish live in the water. This is falsification, trying to falsify a hypothesis simply because it hasn't been proven. While Evolution has more evidence to SUGGEST it is more likely then Creationism, this does not disprove Creationism, nor falsify it.

Creationism is not and never will be an alternative Scientific Theory to the Theory of Evolution.

Scientific Theory: "is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through oobservation and experimentation."

Since no one has actually seen any significant changes or complexity in the anatomy of any living organisms, Evolution does not even fall under the definition of Scientific Theory as it cannot be tested. Evolution and Creationism are based on circumstantial evidence.

"Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program."

Evolution and Creation are theories, for sure, however not "scientific theories". They are more like history theories, however since they deal with the creation and/or development of our biological beings, it is, and should be, classified and taught under science classes.

If we are to accept evolution as a scientific theory, then Creation must be as well.

"Complex Specified Information"...
My opponent is simplifying the CSI to discredit it. In actuality, CSI, in regards to Creation, goes into a large number of other possible alternatives.
Based on how many galaxies there are, how many stars, how many planets...
How many different DNA combinations that can come about through...

Here is a small blurb from the link below:
"Assuming that the 124 proteins can be in any order there are 124! = 5.4 X 10205 possible successful combinations. So the odds of a successful trial is P = 5.4 X 10205/ 3.36 X 1089,586 = 1.6 X 10-89381. Given a total of 3.156 X 1045 trials for the entire universe the the odds of getting a successful trial is P = 1.6 X 10-89381 X 3.156 X 1045 = 3 X 10-89336. There is a technical term in probability used to describe events with such small probabilities and that term is impossible. "

This is the simple math of the different statistics and combinations that can happen with DNA. Putting this over the course of '10,000 to 10 billion years' the outcome of us as humans is ridiculously improbable.

Now, I mean no discredit to Evolution, nor am I trying to prove Creation. My justification in my rebuttals, is that Con has failed to discredit Creation as a legitimate theory. We should teach Creation alongside evolution has the possibilities of our existence here today.

Most arguments for this have been posted as part my rebuttals since my opponent has began talking about the same points I would argue, but here a few more:

According to the Gallup Poll, recorded since 1982, more people have believed in Creationism over Evolution. That is 22 years straight, where no less than 40% of the people in the world accepted Creationism, and never have more people accepted Evolution over Creation.. If this many people believe in Creation, it is the more widely accepted belief, and has every right to be in science classes along with evolution.

If evolution is the only lesson being taught for our existence today in science classes, then that school/teacher is telling these children that Evolution is true. It is only assumed true, therefore alternatives to Evolution should be taught as well.

Creation is considered a valid theory, and if we were to restrict this theory because of Evolution, it would violate the idea of liberal education. It would be bigotry if we were to censor Creation.

"The "California State Board of Education Policy Statement on the Teaching of Natural Sciences" says:

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and of life (the "how") are appropriate to the scientific curriculum. Discussions of diuine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the "why") are appropriate to the history/social science and English/language arts curricula."

This policy has put a clear distinction between theology and creation. Creation falls under science, while theology is more of a "social science".

Thank you, I await your following arguments.

Debate Round No. 2



Pro’s point 1: “The Scientific Method uses both inductive and deductive reasoning.”

Good point Pro!

Yes it does, I did not include this as it is not Circular and does not apply to Creationism.

Deductive Reasoning mostly applies to already existing Scientific Theories, (it states this in your source), whereas in the case of Creationism it does not apply, nor in this debate as Creationism is not and has never been a Scientific Theory.
Creationism is purely a Theological Argument.

So for Creation to move from the current status of Theological Argument to Hypothesis to Theory, requires the use of Inductive Reasoning.

Point 2: “My opponent is confusing Deductive Reasoning with Falsification.”

No, I’m not confusing deductive reasoning with Falsification.

The type of Circular Deductive reasoning used by Creationism is in fact Falsification.

As far as Science is concerned, Creationism practices Scientific Fraud and their hypotheses are indeed Fraudulent.

The original Creationist Method: Pre Intelligent Design and still practiced by Ken Ham.

Premise 1: The Bible is the only true Source of Knowledge.

Premise 2: We have evidence presented to us.

Test for Premise 2: Does the evidence support the Bible or can the Bible explain the Evidence?

Conclusion: Test result is Yes, the Evidence is True, if Test result is No, the Evidence is False.

This Ken Ham approach or pre ID approach is Definitely Fraudulent.

It is an appeal to False Authority Fallacy.

Also most evidence presented by Answers-in-Genesis are also False Analogy Fallacies.

Thus Answers-in-Genesis is a Fraudulent Organization.

Your source is truthfully not much better, it too presents entirely Fraudulent Information.

The Modern, Post ID Method is somewhat similar, but has been obfuscated a little and some surreptitiously scientific sounding terms, which are mostly nonsensical, such as CSI have been added but CSI means nothing in science as you will see later.

My attack on Intelligent Design was confirmed by their own documentation.

The “Discovery Institute” which devised “Intelligent Design”, stated in their Future Strategy document that within 20 years they would be teaching “Intelligent Design” in science classes around the world and that the designer is the Christian God.

Thus ID is an attempt to assert the Bible as Scientific by deception.

This is known as The Wedge Document.

Point 3: “My opponent is simplifying the CSI to discredit it. In actuality, CSI, in regards to Creation, goes into a large number of other possible alternatives.”

No, the CSI concept discredits itself.

Science never claims to be able to answer all questions and even the complexity issues to do with nature, there are many cases where science simply and honestly state’s “As yet, we do not know how such complexity arose!” This is just rational honesty, typical of Science.

Science will never take a leap of faith and assert that “A Designer is responsible” as Intelligent Design does with it’s CSI claims. Such an assertion has no valid evidence for it, thus it is an Assertion Out of Ignorance Fallacy.

In that they have no evidence for the existence of the designer and because they cannot fathom (probability) how such Complexity arose (CSI measurement) they Ignorantly Assert the Designer.
Thus CSI is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

Scientists will simply and honestly state: We don’t Know!

Because Science only states what it has evidence for, not make a blatant Assertion without evidence as Creationism/Intelligent Design practices. Thus the Creationist Circular Deduction, fraudulent logic also applies to Intelligent Design.

Point 4: Pro gives an account of Probability: Mathematical probability does not reflect real life occurrences, the assertion that it does is False: Yet Creationists love to assert Probability Fallacies.

Just your existence is the least probable occurrence in the universe, yet you exist.

Had your parents did anything slightly differently in their lives or during conception, you would not exist. Multiply this for all your ancestors and you will gain a rough picture.

“In short, the probability arguments used by the creationist and ID movements, when analyzed carefully, are fallacious, and are simply countered by the observation that natural evolution, operating in the real world, does in fact produce novel features.”


Macroevolution is where an entire genetic map is altered, thus making quite noticeable changes to the visible structure of the organism. An example of this is Dinosaur Jaws to Bird’s Beaks. This is caused by a change in the Promoter Proteins or the Transcription proteins which affect an entire network of DNA segments, producing completely different proteins and thus functions.

Scientists have been able to reverse some Macroevolutonary changes in birds where they have successfully produced Dinosaur Teeth and Tails in bird embryos. Thus demonstrating that by blocking the proteins that turned off the production of teeth and tails in birds, they are still capable of growing teeth and tails. So the Dinosaur DNA still exists in Birds in it’s entirety, only that Transcription proteins (macroevolutionary contributors) have been altered in the evolution from dinosaurs to birds. So Technically: Birds are Dinosaurs and are now classed as such in Science.

So Evolution works, we are gradually becoming capable of reversing both Microevolutionary and Macroevolutionary changes.

So Evolution now has both Fossil evidence and Genetic evidence of Microevolution and Macroevolution. Demonstrating that Evolution works, without need for any Designer.

Pro Stated: “According to the Gallup Poll, recorded since 1982, more people have believed in Creationism over Evolution.”

This is a classic case of an Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy: The idea that because something is popular it should be accepted. Which is False.

Prior to Galileo almost the entire population of Europe considered the Book of Genesis as absolutely correct, the Earth was at the center of the universe and the sun traced an orbit around Earth.

One man proved the entire world wrong. And once he was discovered as correct, should we still teach that the Earth is the center of the Universe because it was popular. Which is similar to what Pro is proposing.

Believers are being deceived, and not told the Truth that Creationism is completely Bankrupt when it comes to Evidence and Honesty. For the most part, Creationism is extremely Dishonest.

Which describes William Dembski’s CSI concept.

“Knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s bookIntelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]”

Source: Same as previous source above.
Point 5: One State's decision is not a Rational Mandate: Creation has lost every recent court battle to make itself seen as an alternative to Evolution, case closed. Having Creationists in State Govt destroys the credibility of Pro's statement.

Finally: Creationists do not utilize proper Scientific Channels to push their Contrived Evidences.

As anybody can propose a Scientific Hypothesis, everybody can become a scientist, simply by devising a Hypothesis and presenting it with any supporting evidences that they used to formulate their hypothesis from, to any registered scientific body or University research facility where scientists will try to disprove your hypothesis, if no scientist can disprove it, it can become a Scientific Theory.

Because the easiest way to Prove a concept/hypothesis is to try and Disprove it.

Such is the general Scientific approach.

Creationists on the other hand, never put their Arguments/pseudo-hypotheses, to scientific bodies for testing, unless it is their own pseudo-scientists, who reverse the scientific approach and try to give it credibility, rather than disprove their Arguments.

Instead of Approaching it Scientifically, and having their Arguments verified as Truly Scientific, they push them in the Media, Debates, Legal Challenges and Creation School Texts, without any Evidence for their Validity.

They Assert their Arguments in a Trial-by-Media campaign of public Disinformation.

This is totally Unscientific and Demonstrates their Depravity in trying to assert Creation through Popularity Fallacies instead of Honest Validation.

As Pro has tried with his Appeal to Popularity fallacy in citing a Gallup Poll as Evidence.

Gallup Polls are only a measure of Popularity, never a measure of Truthfulness.

Thus the approach of Creationism, trying to make something popular instead of proving it scientifically.

Demonstrating that Creationism is Bankrupt when it comes to Scientific Credibility and their Approach to Science is entirely Fraudulent.

Scientists have committed Fraud in the past, and their Conclusions are wiped from all Science Classes.
Yet Creationists continually and Blatantly commit Scientific Fraud. and never removing proven fraudulent material from classes.

Since Fraudulent Science is always removed from Science Classes, it is obviously idiotic to Include Deliberate Scientific Fraud (Creationism) in Science Classes.

So I rest my case:

Thanks Pro, back to you!

Good Luck!



My opponent has failed to refute one of my points made in the prior round:

"Since no one has actually seen any significant changes or complexity in the anatomy of any living organisms, Evolution does not even fall under the definition of Scientific Theory as it cannot be tested. Evolution and Creationism are based on circumstantial evidence.

Evolution and Creation are theories, for sure, however not "scientific theories". They are more like history theories, however since they deal with the creation and/or development of our biological beings, it is, and should be, classified and taught under science classes."

As this point went unrefuted, we must either assume that:
Despite being taught in science classes, Evolution is not a scientific theory
Or, Evolution, despite the inability to be currently tested today (only past observations) is, alongside Creation Theory, Is a scientific theory.


My opponent has some confusing and contracting arguments...

Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible or Theology.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was set in motion from "specifics acts of divine creation"
This simply means there is some powerful entity whom created us. This has nothing to do with religion, or a god. Simply a creator.

While many religions believe this powerful entity is the "God of their religion", this does not mean Creation has anything to do with religion.
We should ignore any arguments made using the bible or theology as they do not apply to Creationism.

My opponent is again trying to discredit CSI. However, his argument is weak. He is stating it is highly unlikely I, personally, would exist by the extreme number of variables that could have happened in my parents, and other ancestor's life to get here. While yes, those odds are against me being in existence, the fact of human procreation, and the instinct to do so, means people will find mates and keep populating the other.

If we were to examine every single species, and the genetic mutations that would have to take place over "10 billion years" (or however long you feel the earth has been here) is seemingly infinitely times less likely than me being born.

CSI is a matter of probability. This is indeed a part of science.

“As yet, we do not know how such complexity arose!” This is just rational honesty, typical of Science.
Con is asserting that science does not know every answer. Completely TRUE and VALID. However, he is dismissing Creationism as a POSSIBLE THEORY in its entirety because it cannot be scientifically tested as a Scientific Theory.

Again, Evolution cannot be tested as a Scientific Theory per my link in the last round. Only observations can be made as we do not see large genetic mutations happening. We can only assume the likeliness of evolution by the facts around us. This does not dismiss every other arguments.

"Scientists will simply and honestly state: We don’t Know!"
This is not what you are claiming in your arguments. You are wholeheartedly dismissing Creationism. This contradicts what a "scientist" would do.

"Creationists love to assert Probability Fallacies."
The probability that is mentioned is in no way convince anyone of Creation. The probability brought up in many debates is to at least cloud other theories with doubt. There are errors in the evolution theory as to our creation.

As in "Where did the first organism come from that we all evolved from?" The probability this organism came from nothing is highly improbable, and is more likely something, or some entity, put it, or us, here.

Macro and Micro evolution cannot currently be tested as there are no evolving species that have taken place throughout mankind. Only observations can be made of fossils around us.

Again, I am not arguing for anyone to accept Creationism. My Gallup poll is to show the popularity of Creationism over Evolution, thus to give it ground to stand on as a possible theory to our existence.

My opponent has mentioned that Creation has lost almost every court case. This is entirely true. HOWEVER...

Those court cases were for diminishing evolution. As religion was so prominently believed, teaching evolution went against peoples beliefs. Therefore, the courts had to step in and dictate what violated First Amendment Rights, and what was to be allowed, or disallowed in the classroom.

Most of the cases in the following link are very similar to the situation above. They did not abolish creation from the classroom, they were meant to give evolution an opportunity to be taught as well.

Thus your argument for court cases against Creationism does not hold up.

Con has closed in stating Creationism is Fraud, yet previously stated Science doesn't have all the answers, as well as Evolution is a Theory

The door is left open to many possibilities of human origins. Evolution is highly regarded in science classes, but will never be a Law or Fact.

While Creationism has its difficulty in proving a powerful creator entity, this does not dismiss it as being a possibility.

I must end how I started unfortunately repeating myself but hopefully helping readers understand Evolution vs. Creation in a science class...

Per the definition I sourced last round, Evolution cannot be considered a scientific theory either as it cannot be currently tested, only observed by past events.

So we must assume one of two things:

Despite being taught in science classes, Evolution is not a scientific theory


Evolution, despite the inability to be currently tested today (only past observations) is, alongside Creation Theory, is a scientific theory.

I wholeheartedly believe Creationism should be taught ALONGSIDE Evolution in science classes as an alternative to the origins of the world, animals, and humans.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Domr threw in a twister at the final throw, that has to count for something.

That is the advantage of having the final argument in a debate.
Domr used it well.

My opponent in another debate threw that chance away and spent the final argument preaching.
Domr thus shows a better knowledge of strategy than my other opponent.

If you get to have the last argument, Use It Well.
Because your opponent won't have a chance at rebutting it.

That is the downside of Instigating a Debate, you go first and give your opponent last Argument.
One way to defeat that is to only allow no new arguments in the final round, make it a Rebuttals only round.

Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Gee the voting is fast, cannot keep up with the pace.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
My argument almost looked like a Thesis before I trimmed it back.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Thanks, Burncastle, though I should have left the names of the cases in, such as the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, but I had to delete an awful lot to get my argument under 10,000 characters. The names got deleted.
This is why my argument looks sort of rough and bold regions too close together, since I deleted a lot of material in between the bold segments, and I didn't have time to go and re-organize the text properly.
I even had the mention of how Intelligent Design took a Creationist textbook and replaced the word "Creation" with "Design", so the same arguments and evidences for Biblical Creation were being used for Intelligent Design, which demonstrated that Intelligent Design is Biblical Based. Though that was a big mass of text that had to go to get my argument under the limit.
There is so much I had to delete, I nearly had 30,000 characters in my original so I lost over 2/3rds of it.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
I forgot about spinoza's god and was doggedly attacking the Biblical God of Creationists.
So I was a little tunnel visioned there.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Sort of like Einstein's God, or as he called it Spinoza's God.
The elements of innate design built into the forces of the Universe.
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
Well I look at it the opposite way.

For instance,
Christianity believes in Creationism (by God)
Creationism does not believe in Christianity.

I agree it is unlikely you find someone who believes solely in Creation and not a religion, but in my opinion the difference is tangible.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Good argument Domr!
Though a little unbelievable, especially the Creationism has nothing to do with Theology, nor the Bible.

This doesn't Gel with Creationist website comments. and all state that they are Christian and assert the Bible God as being their preferred Creator.
Creation cannot divorce itself from it's Biblical roots by simply denying it.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
It appears that my argument looks entirely different to what it did in my original document and even review.
It looked better with the word processor.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
As I noticed Burncastle's debate still has no takers, so I started this one on similar lines, thinking this one may even go out unchallenged:


1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument were mostly focused on a misunderstanding of evolution (which is confirmed by his last sentence), the concept of theory and a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. The court case argument DOES stand since the very topic of this debate was at the center of the kitzmiller v. dover case (where ID/creationism was ruled out of classrooms). Pro successfully demonstrated why creationism should NOT be taught in schools.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.