CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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
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.
The ONLY debate is among the religious.. There is NO debate among the science community... I suggest you learn the difference between a theory you might come up with, versus a scientific theory...
That we don't know EVERYTHING does NOT invalidate the stuff we DO know..
dna IS important, but what do you mean when you say evolution hasnt explained it yet... dna is a very important part of the evolutionary theory right now, it is because certain genes survive and reproduce while others die off that evolution even occures
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yea im ok with that... as long as we also teach them spagettism, and every other theory anybody has ever come up with... what actual evidence is there for creationism?? because if there isnt any good evidence than teaching them creationism would be the same as teaching them anything someone makes up on the spot
There is literally no evidence for Biblical creationism, but it seems these days that any mention of creation is lumped in with religion. What you have to remember is there is similarly no evidence that life emerged without any help from anything else. In fact, the evidence appears to dispute that thesis, given that we can't recreate the process in a laboratory (and it certainly isn't through lack of trying).
As I've argued on this site many times, the genetic code is evidence that something has at least interfered with biological life, if not actually created it from scratch. I'm not religious. I just refuse to ignore the evidence, wherever it might lead.
Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. There is some debate over the mechanism through which evolution occurs, but it is a verifiable fact that it does. A theory is the highest point that any explanation can reach. Without the theory of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. Evolution is a fact. All living things change over time. Asking if evolution should be taught in school is like asking if gravity should be taught in school.
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!
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.
Heck, lets turn our science classes into theory classes, and then our children can become indoctrinated by the politically correct Teacher's union's corriculum concerning THEIR theories on life.
Did you know that science has no clue how the first living cell mystically popped to life? Yet, this first living cell is their bases for evolution.
I'm for not teaching evolution or creationism in schools. Leave theories to people outside schools. Our kids need to learn the basics.
Another reason to exclude theories from schools is because these theories are many times controversial to parents who do not want their children indoctrinated to other's beliefs.
There are no two parents that think exactly alike, and we sure need no political correct public schools pushing one theory of life over another, against the parent's will.
We all pay taxes to those public schools and our kids should be taught the non controversial BASICS of math, english, science, etc.
Anything else can be taught after school paid for by the parents who want their kids learning the theory of evolution or creationism.
It's funny, when it comes to issues such as Homosexuality, those on the Left think we should ignore the science of biology concerning the natural design of a man and woman.
If they could, they would include homosexuality in the biology classes to indoctrinate our children to political correctness.
This is how it works with the Left. They want our chidren indoctrinated to humanism, and to their political correct beliefs rather than actual science.
Finding fossils of prehistoric animals, proves nothing when it comes to this giant leap of explaining how the unbelievable complex DNA of humans just randomly occurred.
Feel free to copy this argument if you want for your class. It won't be the first time my opinions have been copied by others :)
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.
You want to teach the theory of evolution as fact? You pay for it with extra corricular classes.
I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR THEORIES AS FACT AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT! IF YOU ARE GOING TO INDOCTRIATE STUDENTS WITH THEORIES, YOU MUST INCLUDE ALL THEORIES.
Live with dieversity of thought. Have respect and tolerance for those parents who want their children learning real scientific facts, not your theories.
This is why the Right is big on school choice, so that each parent has a choice to what schools, and what corriculum is being pushed.
It's no coincidence why the Left is always against school choice. They want all our children indoctrinated into their humanistic religion. You are worse than any Conservative on the planet. We don't want Christianity taught in school, but you want your humanistic atheism taught as fact in schools.
There is evolutionary fact, and there is evolutionary theory. It's apparent that you have no comprehension of either one, nor of the difference between the two. It's remarkably apparent that your understanding of humanism is also utterly lacking - it's not a religion, but a philosophical stance...and frankly, you conflate all that refuse your ignorance with them. I'm not exactly a humanist, myself - in some ways, I see the human race as an antagonist to the biosphere, and a poor inheritor to stewardship.
Evolutionary theory is backed up by evolutionary fact - evolutionary fact includes those things we absolutely know about natural selection - the observance of facts, through genetics, for example; and actual plainly observed evolution, such as the plastic eating bacteria. There a number of actual new species that have evolved within human history.
I embrace the diversity of thought - but am repulsed by ignorance.
People such as yourself only respect diversity when it agrees with you. The definition of ignorance to you is when people don't buy into your political correct ideology.
Real scentific facts like people came from a mystical magical first living cell, but no one knows how, when, where, yeh the science of our creation has so many facts.
Like the science of how Pluto was a Planet, then it wasn't a planet.
Like the science of the big bang THEORY.
SCIENCE HAS NOT FACTS OR PROOF OF OUR CREATION!
The Bible says....... "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;"
It seems science is more in agreement with creation from the Bible than we thought.
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.
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.
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.
you are right in that 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!
you still havent answered my question, if its ok to teach the theory of gravity without teaching the flat earth theory why isnt it ok to teach the theory of evolution
i can tell you why it is... because the evidence is pointing towards evolution, and evidence is more important than faith when it comes to educating the next generation
If your child isn’t supposed to learn a thing about evolution then choose a class schedule that doesn’t include biology. Perhaps something that teaches them to say “do you want fries with that?” so they can do God’s good work at Chic-Fil-A.
The anti Christian bigot spews his intolerance once more.
If you ever read what people say instead of deception, you would have read how i said any parent wanting their children learning about THEORIES, can spend their own money on it in extracurricular classes.
You are the arrogant Liberals forcing everyone to fund your theory of choice, your abortions, etc.
Big Brother in action telling everyone how to think and how to believe.
I wil spend my tax dollars on the basics.... math, english, and real science such as biology where we learn what our bodies are actually designed for.
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.
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...
so much missleading nonsense, let me unpack that for you...
a "species" is just a life form different enough from other life forms that we give it its own name, nothing more... so your first argument makes no sense
also evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory... its basically fact... same thing as the "theory" of gravity
"evolution" doesn't mean what you are implying. It is a concept that includes microevolution and macroevolution.
Yes it does. In order for something to evolve it has to exist in the first place, therefore evolution is not a theory about how life began. Theories about how life began are things like panspermia and abiogenesis.
Shut up. You're a liar, an imbecile and a scoundrel.
You've entirely rewritten your second paragraph you stupid, nonsensical twit. It now reads something about me "implying evolution is Darwinian Theory".
You are quite literally the most dishonest person I have ever encountered in my entire life.
Of course you were. You know as well as I do that when you said "evolution" you simply meant fish crawling out of the water and growing legs. We also both know that Evolution consists of many concepts, most of which are not related to said leg fish.
Probably not the best argument seeing you are going into Journalism (not exactly a career known for honesty),are flooded with student debt, and still make way less than I do.
I am well aware that you being a poor, uneducated, dishonest journalist drowning in debt is a fact. I owe no one, have plenty of money, and don't need to demand others pay for me because of poor economic life choices.
