CreateDebate


Debate Info

49
22
Yes No
Debate Score:71
Arguments:65
Total Votes:88
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (36)
 
 No (21)

Debate Creator

michelle02(32) pic



Should evolution be taught in schools? (PLEASE READ THE DESCRIPTION)

I have an essay on this topic next week. Please also add whether or not evolution should be taught to younger kids, thank you.

Yes

Side Score: 49
VS.

No

Side Score: 22
3 points

Yes as in that it should be taught as a theory not as fact as it has not been recognized as such. The fact that the scientific community is still not certian about the origin timeline. The "facts" keep changing. It is still called a "Theory" for a reason. In the 1960s the dinosuars were killed by a volcano. Now it was a metiorite. There is no solid agreement among the scientific community so I do not see why it should be taught as a fact rather than a theory. The complexity of DNA is giving scientists the hardest time with the theory. There is much debate on how DNA came to be and how long it took.

Side: Yes
lionard1122(69) Disputed
1 point

i would say it should be taught as fact until proven to have atleast a decent chance of being wrong... we call gravity the "theory" of gravity too, thats because we need to always remamber that we could be wrong, but since as for right now (and the past 100 years) the evidence has overwhelmingly pointed to evolution we should teach it the same way we teach the theory of gravity

Side: No
thehappy12(14) Disputed
1 point

I agree that it sould be taught but there is still a lot of debate and changing evidence all the time in regards to evolution. As I said before DNA is still a big jump evolution has yet to explain and I dare say DNA is important.

Side: Yes
1 point

Evolution has no basis in religion and its teachings remain indifferent to and separate from that subject. It is based on fact. The facts are that all of the evidence gathered by geneticists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, etc, etc, etc, point toward the same theory- evolution (at this point, I invite you to look up the meaning of the word 'theory' in the scientific community- it's very different than the definition you're used to). It is one of the most important scientific discoveries of the millennium, and should be required curriculum in all schools.

Side: Yes
1 point

of course it should be, all the evidence is pointing towards one place.

Side: Yes
1 point

Hello m:

Yes, of course, science should be taught in school.. Where else would you learn it? Church????? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

Side: Yes
1 point

Clearly. Evolution is a cornerstone of biological science, and actually pretty easy to grasp.

Side: Yes
1 point

You can already look up the ordinary reasons why yes it should be taught so I'm going to try instead to give some extraordinary ones you might not otherwise get...

1) It depends on the academic class. So for example, in Biology class it should because that is a science based subject and evolution is the prevailing explanation used by biology scientists. But in an Introdution to World Religions class it is creative design which would be taught and evolution really doesn't belong there because science isn't a world religion.

2) Creationism is certainly going to be taught in churches. But evolution will never be taught in church. The only valid avenue for teaching evolution would be in an academic setting (school of course). Basically not teaching evolution in school would pretty much silence that line of thinking, whereas not teaching creationism in school doesn't silence it because churches still exist to keep that going.

3) If we want US schools to compete on a global scale and keep up with the world we have to include course material (such as evolution) which is taught world wide. In comparison, if US schools just all reverted to teaching just creationism it would hurt the academic standing of US graduates when held up to comparison with the rest of the world.

Side: Yes
Grenache(5564) Clarified
1 point

I think it's pretty funny that I got a "down" vote for this. It's one of the more balanced positions. I basically granted that in a world religions class evolution doesn't belong there. And I grant creationism will still go on strong in the teachings in church regardless. Really the only thing disagreeable to a creationist is that it hurts our standings comparing education with the world. But that's pretty hard to even deny. The other nations spouting creationism would pretty much be the Muslim nations and maybe a handful of 3rd World Latin American catholic nations. Those are your peers for that kind of education lesson. Everyone else everywhere in the world has schools teaching evolution. You can down vote that, but it doesn't change the reality.

Side: Yes
1 point

Absolutely yes.

Because it is one of the core ideas of the modern world, everyone should know about and understand it, even people who do not believe in the importance of the scientific process and instead embrace faith and belief in things that cannot be scientifically verified.

The theory of evolution provides touchstones between diverse branches of knowledge and fields of study. Learning about the Theory of Evolution includes learning at least something about the following fields of study.

-Biology

-Geology

-Chemistry

-Genetics

-Medicine

-Behavioral science

-Paleontology

-Animal Husbandry

-Statistics

-Etc.

Basic aspects of the theory, like natural selection, are foundational to some theories and principles in fields outside of the hard sciences. Anyone who wants to be conversant in any of the following fields or realms of endeavor must have at least some grasp on the Theory of Evolution.

-Anthropology

-Sociology

-Economics

-Psychology

-Political science

-Artificial Intelligence development

-Etc.

Side: Yes
1 point

I have no problem with evolution being taught in school, however, it should be made absolutely clear that how life began on Earth has nothing to do with evolution. Too many kids mistake evolution as the beginning of life. It should also be taught that scientists for centuries have attempted thousands and thousands of times to start life from non life and every attempt has failed miserably. Kids have to be told that science has deemed it impossible at this time that life cannot begin on its own, because that is what science has proven so far.

Atheists like to point out that there is no physical proof for the existence of God, and there is no physical proof for life beginning on its own, so believing in abiogenesis should be just as ridiculous to an atheist if they truly accept science.

Side: Yes
EldonG(538) Clarified
1 point

Correction: Scientists have no way to simulate the millions of years over the entire surface of the planet to allow for all the possibilities that might allow for life to arise, so there is no definitive experiment that shows how life started.

We do have successful experiments that have shown how RNA arises from simple proteins - that unto itself is quite amazing.

Side: Yes
foratag(247) Clarified
1 point

We do know all of the chemicals that were present when the Earth was formed and in its early stages, so doing combinations of them should over time allow us to determine if life can start from nothing. How much time is the question. I guess if we started now we will have our answer in a few million years. I have to be shown that it can be done, which at present the answer is no.

RNA has arose, you are correct, but RNA is nowhere remotely close to life.

Side: Yes
1 point

As evolution has long since ceased to be a theory and has been accepted as scientific fact it should not only be taught in schools but should form the sole explanation for the development of all life on earth including mankind.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, it should also be taught along with creationism without bias towards either theory. Doing that allows for students to judge both theories and come to their own conclusions about why evolution is the correct theory rather than just being told it's correct.

Side: Yes
EldonG(538) Disputed
1 point

Creation is in no way a scientific theory - it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. To give it any weight in a science classroom would be a travesty.

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8338) Disputed
1 point

Exactly teach students the scientific method then teach them both evolution and creationism side by side then allow them to dismantle creationism themselves. It allows the students to use critical thinking to find out which theory is correct rather than just telling them that evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

Side: Yes
1 point

evolution is a theory.......... and so is gravity

so if you are advocating to teach alternetive theories to evolution like creationism why not also teach the FLAT EARTH theory

thats because the scientific definition of a theory is very different than your presumed definition... its just the best explanation we have based on the evidence... and frankly evolution takes that title by a mile!

Side: No
-2 points
EldonG(538) Disputed
4 points

Wow, the ignorance on display here is stunning.

Do you understand that a theory is literally the greatest expression of science? That you started with what essentially amounts to a claim that science shouldn't be taught - as science?

Scientific laws are simply facts that support theories - theories are (often huge) bodies of work that have been peer reviewed, and rigorously tested. Anything less than that are known as hypotheses.

Evolution, itself, is one of the most heavily supported theories in existence, with vast amounts of evidence coming from even different fields of science. Genetics, for example, verifies what we thought we knew, and medicine proves it quite predictive.

Ramble all you like about abiogenesis - it's obvious that you don't have a clue about it, and how evolution doesn't depend on it in any way whatsoever.

Creationism is not science. Science starts with observation, not predisposition. That is critical to honest science. There is zero integrity behind creationism.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5206) Disputed
2 points

If we are gong to allow theories of how life began, we must also allow other theories such as Creationism.

Evolution theory says nothing about how life began. How do you have the confidence continually spout off about something you know nothing about? The arrogance is astounding.

Side: Yes
Grenache(5564) Disputed
1 point

The others already answered this well but let me try a different spin. Saying a theory does not belong in science class is like saying faith doesn't belong in church. Science is completely about testing theories, and church is about having faith.

Side: Yes
1 point

Interesting way to put it. Should we try and get faith out of the churches?

I'm just hoping some can see the ridiculousness of it.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(5476) Disputed
1 point

Our children are not funneled into public churches to be indoctrinated by some power hungry teachers union or large Church union.

Churh attendance is completely voluntary, and we know what it teaches our children before we go in. Our choice when it comes to which Churches we attend, but when it comes to public schools, the Left screams....NO SCHOOL CHOICE!

The Left wants our children funneled into public schools where they have no choice, so there should not be controversial subjects taught to the children since parents do not agree on many of these theories or political correct subjects.

It's called respect for diverse opinions and not pushing one theory of how life began. Either give all theories, or give none.

I said, leave out controverisal theories and have respect for the right's of others to not have their chidren indoctrinated to how you think things happened.

Side: No
0 points

No! A theory should have no part in science classes. If we are gong to allow theories of how life began, we must also allow other theories such as Creationism.

God, you're just sooooooooooooo incredibly ignorant.

Firstly, evolution is not a theory. It was a theory when Darwin wrote it, hundreds of years ago. Now it is established scientific fact, supported by a smorgasbord of various empirical evidence.

Secondly, evolution was never a theory about how life began in the first place. It was a scientific hypothesis about how life grew increasingly more complex with the passage of time.

Side: Yes
1 point

Firstly, evolution is not a theory

Evolution is not a theory (your claim), but "evolution" doesn't mean what you are implying. It is a concept that includes microevolution and macroevolution.

You are implying that "evolution" is Darwinian Theory, which it isn't, and Darwinian Theory is? A theory...

Side: No