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

Should Creationism be taught in public schools as fact?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
atsmith49er has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 101804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Overall the educational system around the world places most of it's information to the kids as proven facts in the science department. Of course some have more understanding of science in their academics than others due to their economic situation (developed, developing, less developed). But the world of science has been almost always pure fact except for when it becomes corrupted for corporate or political reasons. But in the academics of children it remains relatively untouched. Which brings to the point, should Creationism be taught as fact in public schools? Developed countries such as America still have dozens of schools teaching Creationism as fact. Now that wouldn't be a problem if they were private, but these are public schools, and some of these kids have to go to the school whether it's the only one in the area or some other reason. To teach Creationism is to throw away hundreds and possibly thousands of years of work and research that has proven it to be wrong, giving it no reason to be taught, especially since it slashes through science class and the true reason behind it which is to give students an understanding of their body, environment, and universe so they can see and do things in confidence. To teach Creationism as fact is to defy not only laws which doesn't allow public schools to teach it as fact but it also removes the intelligence, imagination, and sense of wonder of the universe and planet that we live within. Without a doubt, Creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools.


I believe Creationism should be taught in public schools as fact. But before I get into why, I would like to share why your why-nots are not why-nots.

First, if Creationism and science conflict, then I would agree that creationism is not true and should, therefore, not be taught. However, I would like to propose the argument that science is not only compatible with Creationism, but mandatory. However, for the sake of time, I will begin my only explaining why Creationism is not incompatible with science, and save the argument for why science is mandatory for Creationism for a later time.

Depending on how you interpret the book of Genesis will largely influence whether science and Creationism are compatible. At its core, Creationism is the belief that there was a creator, existing outside of our natural world (aka supernatural), that created the universe. For example, if there was a supernatural being that created the big bang, and then sat back and watched the universe create itself, this would still be considered creationism at its core. Therefore, it is very difficult (actually impossible) for science"which only explains the natural world"to disprove a creator"something supernatural. All of sciences facts and theories can be 100% true while at the same time being an effect of some supernatural being initiating the big bang.

Now, once we've realized this, we discover intelligent design and science are very much compatible in that they are completely independent from one another. However...........

....typically when people use the word Creationism, they refer to the method of creation in Genesis of the Bible. For this reason, I will assume this is what CON means by "Creationism".

The story of Creation in the Bible definitely conflicts with science if and only if the author intended it to be read literally instead of metaphorically. Many big-name philosophically-minded preachers (such as Tim Keller) believe that the Creation story of Genesis was meant to be taken figuratively instead of literally. Now, I would like ot mention here that I do realize people often use the argument "Well since the Bible contradicts truth, it must be that you're reading it wrong/reading it out of context." People often use this excuse incorrectly, and I want to be careful to avoid it. However... I also realize that if the Bible is indeed God's communication to humans, I would suspect that it would be written with some degree of complexity, creativity, and intelligence that would require intelligent humans to read thoughtfully and analytically. For example, when Shakespeare (a very intelligent author) writes a piece, it would be foolish to read it thinking that his wisdom will easily jump off the page and make itself apparent to the reader with little thought whatsoever. How much more, then, shall the written word of a God be difficult to fully extract the wisdom in its pages?

With that being said, I believe Creationism at its core is the idea that the universe was planned with a purpose and created by an intelligent designer, therefore giving life meaning and fulfillment, while not necessarily outlining the process of the design (whether it be literally 7 days vs. 15 billion days or microevolution vs. macroevolution etc.). Creationism's goal is to explain WHY the universe was created, while sciences goal is to explain HOW the universe was created. ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" e=mc^2
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheMagi 3 years ago
There are so many flaws in that paragraph it would take a year to address.
Posted by TheMagi 3 years ago
There are so many flaws in that paragraph it would take a year to address.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Creationism would not need faith to be believed, if it was a fact. Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, but then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, you cant have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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