Attention: Debate.org 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
Christfollower
Con (against)
The Contender
kim28
Pro (for)

Should the theory of evolution be taught in public 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
kim28 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2019 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 120869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Christfollower

Con

I believe evolution should not be in public schools because it is a religion.

1 round is acceptance and state your position.

rule:
be nice, No trash talking
kim28

Pro

The theory of evolution should be taught in school. It is unconstitutional for a public school curriculum to promote religious belief.
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Con

If it is unconstitutional for a religion to be taught, Why is evolution taught? It is not science but a religion. It has many lies.
The definition of science is: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The definition of religion is a particular system of faith
The six definitions of evolution.
Cosmic evolution " the origin of time, Space, And matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution " the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution " the origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution " the origin of life.
Macro-evolution " the changing from one kind of animal to another.
Micro-evolution " the variations within kinds. The only one that is observed.
(the first 5 are completely religious, And that only micro-evolution is observed. )

Evolution does not fit into that category. They can pretend to test and see small changes but they never see a dog give birth to a none dog. They say if you give billions of years it will work. That is where they leave science and go to religion. It takes extreme faith to believe that in a billion years, Dogs will produce a non-dog.

Lets look at all the lies taught in textbooks about evolution.
Lie 1: Geologic Time Scale
the geologic column was made famous in the 1830"s when Charles Lyell mentioned these layers of strata in his book called the Principles of Geology. The geologic column is where all of the different types of layers found in the earth"s surface represents a different age in time. The only place on earth where all of the layers of the geologic column are in order, Is in the textbooks. There isn"t a place on earth where all of the layers appear in the proper order. For example petrified trees (polystrate fossils) connecting many of these layers of strata. These different layers don"t represent huge gaps in time.

Lie 2: Common Ancestors
Charlie Darwin took trip to the Galapagos Islands, Where he studied the Island"s 14 varieties of finches. Upon studying these birds and noticing their differences, Darwin concluded that these finches must have had a common ancestor. Darwin also noticed that the beaks of these birds change in thickness (1/10th of 1 millimeter) from warm the months to the cold months. Then when Darwin wrote his book, Origin of Species, He used these findings as evidence to say "It is a truly wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other. " (page 170). I agree with Darwin that the finch did have a common ancestor, A bird (finch).

There are fourteen varieties of finches doesn"t prove that they came from a common ancestor that was not a bird, And it definitely doesn"t prove that birds are related to bananas, Which Darwin clearly theorizes in his book. Micro-evolution (variations) is far different from macro-evolution (different kinds). Micro-evolution is a mere variation within a kind, And that there is a limit to the variation. Dogs, Wolfs, And coyotes may also have a common ancestor even though they are different species. They are still the same "kind" of animal which he states is completely accurate to what is said in Genesis 1, Where the word "kind" is mentioned ten times. The evidence for the macro-evolution side of Darwin"s argument (plants to birds) was clearly non-existent, At least in the evidence he brought forth during his trip, And was based on his already existing world-view.

Lie 3: Cosmic Evolution
cosmic evolution is the "origin of time, Space, And matter". God is the origin of these things and evolutionists believe that The Big Bang is the origin.

There are textbooks that say "evolution can be defined as a change in species over time", Which I believe in (they just have limits). Evolutionists are trying to convince people of all six steps of evolution by only bringing evidence for #6 (micro-evolution). He then goes on to present his evidence that macro-evolution isn"t just micro-evolution over time as well as other information regarding genetic mutations, Limitations, And variety differences.

Lie 4: Evidence from Fossils
No fossils can count as evidence for evolution because there is no way to prove that those animals had any offspring.

Lie 5: Genetic Mutations in Fruit Flies
There is a diagram from a school biology textbook showing several mutations on fruit flies after having them undergo radiation exposure. They produced flies with curled wings, White eyes, Yellow bodies, And even flies with no wings. This led the scientists to conclude that the fruit flies have evolved as far as they can go by stating "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. " While the observation is the same (that all of the fruit flies were inferior to the original fly) for both the evolutionist and the creationist, Their conclusions are far different. The scientists think they have evolved as far as they can go, And I think the fruit flies were doing just fine before people started putting them in a laboratory and started messing with them.

There is an article from January 2000 entitled "Darwin, As fit as ever", Which shows that "flies in the North have wings 4% larger than flies in the South. " This is small adaptation a desperate attempt to prop up a dead theory.

Lie 6: Evidence from Comparative Anatomy
Comparative anatomy, The study of the structures in different organisms, Is another common piece of evidence often cited by evolutionists. There is a snippet from a biology textbook on comparative anatomy and homologous structures (similar structures) that states "These homologous structures provide evidence that these animals evolved from a common ancestor. " Another answer to this observation is that these animals have similar structures because they share a common designer, Not a common ancestor.
Though many animals appear to have similar structures, They derive from different chromosomes and genes than others. Therefore disproving that they came from a common ancestor. He states scientists still don"t have a concise response for that genetic finding.

Lie 7: Evidence from Embryology
The similarity in development in the early stages of life, Also known as embryology, Is often cited in textbooks worldwide as evidence for evolution. Darwin is often quoted as saying embryology is "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor" of his theory and Haeckel (the creator of the theory) called it "biogenetic law". In short, The theory states that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". In other words, Each organisms goes through their species" entire evolutionary development process inside the womb.

This theory was proven wrong in 1875 when it was shown that Earnst Haeckel faked the drawings of embryos inside the womb from different species because he wanted to show evidence for evolution, His new favorite theory. After reading Darwin"s book, "Origin of Species", Earnst Haeckel said "it was the turning point in his thinking" and was desperate to find evidence to support it.

The relgion of evolution should not be taught in school because it is a religion and has many lies.
kim28

Pro

Here is a simple way to explain why the evolution of theory should be taught in school:

First, The definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory goes as follows; an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method.

The theory of evolution is just a theory! Although it could be backed up by a lot of scientific findings, Teachers and scientist admit that this is only a theory and people can have different beliefs from it.

Are we also just gonna skip over the fact that in history you learn about religion!

I don"t know man
Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Con

"Are we also just gonna skip over the fact that in history you learn about religion! "
That's different. That is history, Not present.

"The definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory goes as follows; an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method. "
NO ONE can repeatedly test evolution. IT just doesn't exist.

" Teachers and scientist admit that this is only a theory and people can have different beliefs from it. "
Then why don't they teach creation in the same way they teach evolution?

I am asking for evolution to be removed from biology textbooks. I don't want to pay for lies being taught in the textbooks with my tax dollars
kim28

Pro

kim28 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Con

I rest my case.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Evolution is accepted as fact in science
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@christ

"HUMANS are the evolution GOD. Without God, Humans rule the world". That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Show me one scientific textbook that states a banana turns into a human. One textbook.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
@kill
Number 1 is out for obvious reasons; there is no evolution God.
HUMANS are the evolution GOD.
Without God, Humans rule the world.

"Of course nobody observed a dog produce a non-dog, That's ridiculous and it's not a claim proposed by evolution. "

What evolution is saying is you went from banana to human. If no one has observed 1 kind of animal become a different animal, Then it is not science. It is a religion if you need FAITH that it will turn into a different animal over billions of years. Or that it did evolve over billions of years.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
pressured by selection and constrained by forces*
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@christ

religion:
1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods.
2) a particular system of faith and worship.

Number 1 is out for obvious reasons; there is no evolution God.

Number 2 is out because there is no faith/worship.

Evolution is a tentative scientific model describing the observed biodiversity around us. It's not a faith because as it has evidence; when you have evidence, You don't need faith. It's not a form of worship; there is no central God figure or authority, And everything is based on peer review and scientific consensus.

Of course nobody observed a dog produce a non-dog, That's ridiculous and it's not a claim proposed by evolution. You making such a claim is either the product of personal incredulity or intentional dishonesty.

There is no faith statement stating something new will be produced in a billion years. Evolution is not a ladder; there are no intervals or goals. Evolution is the product of natural biological processes constrained by selection and pressured by forces.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
@killshot
evolution is a RELIGION, Not science. No one has observed a dog produce nondog. You have FAITH that is 1 billion years it will produce something else.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@con - Yes it most certainly should be taught. It is the best tentative scientific model for biodiversity; multiple fields of science rely on it and support it; there is no other competing model.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@ku4 - No I don't know, Perhaps you should explain.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@melcharaz - Ken Ham is a disingenuous and delusional whack-job with the IQ of a cotton ball.
Posted by Ku4nt3m 3 years ago
Ku4nt3m
Keyword here is "theory", You know. . .
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.