CreateDebate


Debate Info

96
203
It's only fair... Not on my watch!
Debate Score:299
Arguments:149
Total Votes:341
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It's only fair... (59)
 
 Not on my watch! (90)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3318) pic



If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?

It's only fair...

Side Score: 96
VS.

Not on my watch!

Side Score: 203
5 points

I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools, but teachers need to ensure their students understand that the theory of evolution enjoys much more academic support.

It doesn't hurt for students to learn the differing viewpoints in controversial issues - in fact that could help them learn to think rationally, rather than believe the first thing they're taught.

Side: It's only fair...
aveskde(1934) Disputed
5 points

It doesn't hurt for students to learn the differing viewpoints in controversial issues - in fact that could help them learn to think rationally, rather than believe the first thing they're taught.

The body of creationism is misinformation designed to undermine biology, physics and chemistry. Teaching it in school alongside science means effectively reducing understanding of that science.

Side: Not on my watch!
Peekaboo(710) Disputed
6 points

With a hot topic like evolutionism vs creationism, I think it can only benefit students to hear both sides of the debate. How much teaching varying perspectives "reduces understanding" really depends on the teacher's technique and the students' ability.

If you're talking about teaching a group of 4 year olds, I agree that you shouldn't confuse them by giving them incompatible information that their young minds may not be able to handle.

But a middle or high school audience is intellectually mature enough to juggle differing points of view and understand that not all arguments are equal in persuasiveness. There is no need for the teacher to present evolutionism and creationism as though they are both scientifically received theories - in fact I specifically said that teachers should add a caveat when explaining creationism.

All that needs to be said is, "Just so you know, there is a number of people who reject the theory of evolution. They believe in blah blah blah because blah blah blah and they present this and that as evidence for it, although the scientific community generally doesn't think that evidence holds water because blah blah blah."

As a side note, I did argue in another comment on this page that I'd rather see it taught under religious studies than science, because it is based on religion rather than science.

Side: It's only fair...
3 points

science in itself is pure theory which coencides with what we know. what you choose to believe and not believe is purely up to you. in the same way if i choose to believe in creationism i would expect you to respect that. i think it should be taught, it may not have what you waould call "scientific" evidence but as a wise man once said

"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."

Side: It's only fair...
anotherguy34(3) Disputed
1 point

When I see your comments I laugh, with reason.

Science (and Religion)was designed to help the world, and yet Science made up for the people it saved by bombing up the whole damn place (Pearl Harbor,9/11, etc),

while Religion destroyed people(Crusades,Witch Hunts), because people used religion as their justification to do evil. The difference between the two is, Those who used science for evil did it on their own hatred,greed and lust for power.Those who did evil with religion in mind, did it AGAINST the guidelines of their specific Holy Book ( Pretty much the same as The scientific mishaps). Bible, Quran etc.

Science ( AND Religion, which is made up of ethics in the first place, Those who conveniently interpret strangely, simply to justify their wrongs are a whole other matter) without ethics is fruitless and not beneficial in any way whatsoever. And that is what destroys the world. Power without moral or ethical guidelines. In the 1930's who would have thought that promiscuity of one person,or many people depending on the case, could cause the death of millions of people? (Aids ,Herpes etc) and all goes back to what dreaded Religion was saying from the beginning.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL, STEAL, LIE, SLEEP WITH ANYONE BUT YOUR WIFE.

The first commandment, "Thou shall not have any other god But Me' is yet to show its repercussions when disobeyed.

Side: It's only fair...
ap0110(70) Disputed
5 points

Let's see, if we're going with the "teach the controversy idea", then let's throw a few more topics in. We should teach Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy, and Alchemy alongside Chemistry. Of course this is pretty ridiculous, and these other viewpoints have no place in a science classroom, just like creationism/intelligent design doesn't.

Side: Not on my watch!
Peekaboo(710) Disputed
2 points

Note that I said "controversial issues". Is astrology vs astronomy a hot topic debate that gets people fired up whenever it is mentioned? Is alchemy vs chemistry?

Yes, astrology has its supporters. But every astrologist I have come across or read has also accepted standard astronomical theories in addition to their astrological beliefs - for example, they don't genuinely believe that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth when they use geocentric measurements; in fact they provide scientifically supported explanation as to why retrograde occurs (e.g. http://www.astrologycom.com/retroframe.html ). Astrologists do not provide scientific evidence to disprove astronomy; the few who provide evidence at all do so only to supplement it. And because they tend to view astrology as a purely spiritual or occult hobby rather than as an eternal truth that they are obliged to teach, astrologists aren't actively running around the place trying to "convert" people into believing astrology, unlike creationists. Creationists believe evolutionism is false; that is why some lobby for creationism to be taught alongside it. Astrologists do not have a problem with general astronomical theories, so an astrology debate doesn't even exist when a teacher explains astronomy.

Alchemy the ancient science is so thoroughly disproven to the point where you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who still believes they can magically turn lead into gold. Alchemy as a set of spiritual or psychological theories has a number of adherents, but spiritual or psychological matters are properly placed in either religious studies or psychology class, as these alchemists themselves would tell you. And again, modern alchemists do not actively oppose chemistry.

So is there still any mystery as to why astrology or alchemy aren't taught side by side with astronomy or chemistry?

Not that I am opposed to it - astrological geocentric assumptions could be an interesting side dish to append to an astronomy lesson, and ancient alchemical theories an interesting introduction to modern chemistry. ("In the olden days it was believed that physical matter had this and that property, and by doing this and that you could transmute them into other substances. Now we know better...") But they are fundamentally different from the creationism vs evolutionism debate.

Side: It's only fair...
2 points

I suppose if you had to have creationism/evolution then you would also have to incude homeopathy when training as a doctor

Side: Not on my watch!
iamdavidh(4868) Disputed
2 points

There is not a spec of evidence of creationism.

By your logic you should not have a problem with taxpayer dollars paying to teach kids that the earth is flat, or that gravity doesn't exist it's just god holding our shoulders, or let's teach them Cthula built the moon out of cheese and the tides are cause by sea monsters. Let's start offering physics-of-how-Santa-fits-through-chimneys 101.

It's silly. The religious are in the midst of trying to create a false equivelency. School teaches varying theories when there is support for a theory. Was the moon created when an Asteroid hit the earth and separated part of it? Or was it a large asteroid that became caught in our gravity?

Those are theories with scientific backing.

Creationism is one religion trying to surpress actual knowledge in favor of their superstitions. Nothing more.

Side: Not on my watch!
CharterP(8) Disputed
2 points

Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began? I think not. Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven? He is God. He doesn't have to obey the rules of science because he is beyond them. Would you say there is purpose in the universe? Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die? Do you fear it? Does believing in science give you comfort? There is so much support for creationism. I encourage you to look for it. You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else. There is science behind creationism as well. If you were to look you could find a debate for anything you want. There are always two sides. You are neglecting to remember that evolution itself is still a theory. Why in the world should not only creation, but many other theory's be taught in school. Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian. I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.

Side: It's only fair...
Peekaboo(710) Disputed
1 point

ap0110 raised a very similar point to yours, which I replied to. I'll link rather than repeat myself: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ If_evolution_is_taught_in_schools_shouldn_t_creationism#arg147144

The examples you gave are the same as ap0110's alchemy vs chemistry example. They do not generate debate anywhere near what you see with creationism vs evolutionism, so they're not exactly urgent topics.

In a country where 40% of the population believes in young earth creationism ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx ), it would be rather nonsensical to completely ignore this theory in school, as if it didn't exist. Like sex, children will learn about it one way or another. But schools can control where they first hear this theory from and how it is presented to them.

Side: It's only fair...
2 points

I have big problem with "intelligent design" I dont think design was intelligent. Let's name it "stupid design"?

Side: It's only fair...
protazoa(428) Disputed
1 point

I suppose that evolution will be taught in church as well, right?

Side: Not on my watch!
Peekaboo(710) Disputed
1 point

Well, I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools, and similarly I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in church.

Side: It's only fair...
2 points

1. Of course it should -but not in the same class and creationism should never be aligned with science.

2. Isn't there already a specific class for that? Like "religion"? We have one where I live.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

Evolution is all a lie.

Genesis proves everything.

That being said evolution shouldn't even be taught in schools, and creationism alone should.

Side: What is right is right
DaWolfman(3318) Disputed
4 points

I wonder what is going to happen when they find a gene that triggers homosexuality ... are the religious extremists going to cover their ears and go about picketing?

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

rather, continue to cover their ears and go about picketing?

Side: Not on my watch!
protazoa(428) Disputed
1 point

Actually, Harry Potter clearly disprobes the bible.

Since both are nothing more than books without scholarly evidence, yet both have a cultish following, perhaps muggles should be informed of the magical arts as well?

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists. The more schools and institutions try and prove evolution the more they end up disproving it. Topics like Irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion and Schaeffer's embryo drawings are biting evolutionists in the butt because they refute themselves. I have found that the only reason that evolutionists get up in arms about teaching Creationism in schools is because they are afraid of evolution being disproved. Evolutionists know that if they are losing the argument over evolution and intelligent design. I think that it is only fair to teach ALL creation theories because here in America we are trying our best to promote equality. In order to do that we must teach the creation story of all the major world religions, not JUST Christianity or JUST Evolution. Another issue with evolution being taught in schools is that people love to glorify the "Separation of Church and State". However, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion that believes in evolution, therefore we have just crossed the Church/State boundary. The other issue is that we are brainwashing our students when we don't teach other creation theories. Students won't ask those key questions about evolution when they don't know anything different than evolution. We aren't showing them all of the options and we are shutting down those who want to question the theory of evolution (religious motivation or not). It is blatantly going against the 1st amendment of freedom of speech and expression. It is impossible to claim that the government is taking a neutral stance by only teaching one creation theory. One must teach every single theory with an unbiased approach to be neutral. We are denying students the knowledge that they deserve. School textbooks are using outdated and unreliable information, teachers are fired for raising debates in class and teaching kids that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and the evolutionists are scrambling to shut down anyone who opposes evolution.

To sum this all up:

If Evolutionists believe that Evolution is a rock-solid, irrefutable theory then there should be no problem in teaching other creation theories since they must all fall short of evolution if Evolution is as irrefutable as people like to think.

Side: It's only fair...
Bohemian(3866) Disputed
4 points

If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists.

According to a 1997 gallup poll about 95% of scientists accept evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

The number is even higher amongst researchers in the natural sciences. Which one studied found to be at about 99.85%

Creationists have been making such claims since I entered the debate, and the figures have remained largely constant.

Side: Not on my watch!
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists.

A lie. Bohemian covered the actual statistics already.

Furthermore, of less importance the popularity of an idea is the reasons upon which the acceptance of it are based. Popular ideas have been wrong before, so you cannot draw a conclusion upon that; you must find out why people accept something.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Topics like Irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion and Schaeffer's embryo drawings...

...have either already been falsified or explained.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

I have found that the only reason that evolutionists get up in arms about teaching Creationism in schools is because they are afraid of evolution being disproved.

If evolution is false, scientists want to know it. Unlike creationists, they have no emotional or spiritual investment in the defense of their theory; their investment lies in the pursuit of knowledge and truth, even if that path leads to the debunking of long-held ideas. Creationist sites like Answersingenesis openly claim that no evidence, ever, even as of yet undiscovered evidence, could possibly refute creationism. This is not real science.

Evolutionists know that if they are losing the argument over evolution and intelligent design.

Another lie. Religious propaganda has done an excellent job of inventing a dispute in the minds of the public, but in the scientific community, there is hardly even an argument, as all the available evidence for creationism has been neatly dispatched.

I think that it is only fair to teach ALL creation theories because here in America we are trying our best to promote equality. In order to do that we must teach the creation story of all the major world religions, not JUST Christianity or JUST Evolution.

Sure, in a religious education class, this is a great idea. In a science class, it is not.

Another issue with evolution being taught in schools is that people love to glorify the "Separation of Church and State". However, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion that believes in evolution, therefore we have just crossed the Church/State boundary.

Just because a philosophy that has been branded a religion has accepted evolution does not mean evolution is a religious theory. Its evidence is solidly based in science, and there are sects and individuals who accept evolution and still believe in various deities.

The other issue is that we are brainwashing our students when we don't teach other creation theories.

Are we brainwashing them, too, when you tell them the earth is round and that it rotates around the sun? When we teach them that their bodies are composed of cells? Because those are theories, too.

Students won't ask those key questions about evolution when they don't know anything different than evolution. We aren't showing them all of the options and we are shutting down those who want to question the theory of evolution (religious motivation or not).

Right, this is why nobody ever conducts any further experiments or research in order to further define the specifics and possibilities of evolution. Oh, wait, I forgot- this is happening all the time.

It is blatantly going against the 1st amendment of freedom of speech and expression. It is impossible to claim that the government is taking a neutral stance by only teaching one creation theory. One must teach every single theory with an unbiased approach to be neutral. We are denying students the knowledge that they deserve.

I do not see why the government needs to treat something that is true, and something that is false, as equal theories when it comes to what enters the classroom. I hope you would not advocate that students be taught that the moon could be made of cheese, if a religious group popped up that believed such an absurdity.

School textbooks are using outdated and unreliable information, teachers are fired for raising debates in class and teaching kids that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and the evolutionists are scrambling to shut down anyone who opposes evolution.

Learn what 'theory' entails when used in the scientific sense.

Just because people who support creationism are 'shut down' doesn't mean there is big desperate conspiracy theory to silence their shocking revelations. It mostly means their claims are wrong and that they are not taken very seriously among scientists.

If Evolutionists believe that Evolution is a rock-solid, irrefutable theory then there should be no problem in teaching other creation theories since they must all fall short of evolution if Evolution is as irrefutable as people like to think.

In other words, if x is true, then there's no problem with lying to people and telling them that y and z contradict x but are totally just as possible and well-supported.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

I personally don't believe in a god or any super natural being. When you bring up religion in debate it usually results in opposing sides becoming defensive and not listening and reasoning. They end up talking AT each other and not TO each other.

Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Each one requires a leap of faith to beilieve in and stand for. If one is accpetable to be taught in schools, then other thoeries should have that same privelage.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

Evolution is pure religion, but creationism is based upon scientific facts and historic records.

Side: It's only fair...
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

Evolution is pure religion, but creationism is based upon scientific facts and historic records.

Oh, the irony, it's blinding...

You have it backwards. Literally every piece of evidence for creationism has been refuted by the scientific community. It is a falsified religious theory and unless something new is presented, it will rightfully remain as such and thus is the realm of religious education classes, not science classes.

Side: Not on my watch!
EvgRooster(29) Disputed
2 points

Give me one good piece of evidence that evolution has. Since, this is always your claim of about your religion. Creation has theirs evolution doesn't.

Side: It's only fair...
imrigone(768) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is not religion. Religion require faith. Evolutionists only believe in evolution because there is considerable evidence to support it. Religions all have some idea of afterlife. Evolution doesn't have that at all.

Creationism isn't based on scientific facts. The premise that a supernatural entity created life is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific. However, the notion that life appeared fully formed is falsifiable and has been repeatedly falsified by evolution.

If you intend to refer to science, its time you demonstrate that you know something about it.

Side: Not on my watch!
EvgRooster(29) Disputed
1 point

Show me the evidence and I will never call it a religion again. Otherwise, go eat some chicken and noodle grandma.

Side: It's only fair...
AaylaRaven(23) Disputed
1 point

There is literally not one single piece of evidence for creationism. (the bible is NOT evidence, it is more of the claim, btw.) Can you explain to me why on certain islands, flowers EVOLVE to the exact shape of hummingbirds that dwell on that specific island, and EVOLVE into different shapes, to match the differently EVOLVED hummingbirds on different islands? Or how we need to get different flu vaccines because the virus EVOLVES and we need to change the vaccine? Or why finches EVOLVE different beak density and size to suit their dietary requirements over the years to prevent competition for food?

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

Yes. Creationism should definitely be taught in schools. Evolution is just a theory and has no real fact.

Side: It's only fair...
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

Unless you have some seriously revolutionary evidence to add to that, you are sadly mistaken about everything you have just said.

Side: Not on my watch!
AaylaRaven(23) Disputed
1 point

Creationism is a belief and has no standing in the scientific community. It literally takes the most basic knowledge of biology to know that it is false.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

It is only fair! Evolution is a religion as much as Creationism is.

Side: Definatley
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

No, it isn't.

It is a fact that allele frequencies change over generations. Everything else that has to do with evolution, such as the idea we share a common ancestor with apes, is based upon massive amounts of empirical evidence. It is the opposite of religion, so to speak.

Side: Not on my watch!
imrigone(768) Disputed
4 points

Sigh. Evolution is not a religion. It is a description of an observed process within the field of biology. It does not attempt to guide our morality. It does not make any comment on supernatural entities except that if a god or gods created life, evolution is part of the process. It does not require faith; scientific theories are required to be falsifiable, religious doctrines are not. It does not propose any concept of after life, but all ideologies universally agreed to be religions do.

And if it is only fair to teach creationism in schools, than it is only fair to teach ALL creation myths in school. There are hundreds, if not thousands of those.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

I think it would children to have a balanced view and would also help in children forming their own views.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

I agree, only people who think for themselves ever find out anything new/undiscovered. Galileo, Jimi Hendrix (LOL)etc

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

I believe they should both be taught at schools to sum it up this is the best way to explain it

Creationism-Why the world was created

opposed to

Evolution-How the world and creatures became what they are today

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

I think creationism and evolution should both be taught in school. Neither should be taught as fact because neither can be 100% proven which is why the are THEORIES in the first place. Seriously, NO ONE knows what really happened so i don't see the point in arguing about something that neither side can win. Let both sides be taught because high school kids are mature and can decide what they want to believe in. Nobody will know who is right until they die and either nothing happens or they are in front of the pearly gates, but then it is to late to tell anyone about it so just live your life and stop arguing over something that has no end.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

Oh and in the Debate title it never said that evolution and creationism both be taught in science class or in the same class for that matter so i don't know where that idea came from, but if one is required then we can't turn a blind eye to the other side.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Side: It's only fair...
0 points

If we show one theory (evolution) we must teach the other as well. I don't think we are actually created by a God, but we cant physically prove we are not. its the mystery that has left all of us in question. is it possible we evolved, sure is. Are we created by a higher power, could be as well! Or, we (humanity) founded this planet to start anew from a deteriorating other!

Side: It's only fair...
0 points

lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't.

Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes. Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there. Which is better than saying a few things popped up out of nowhere.

Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand. HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains.

Humans simply dont like to know, that there is something that make them look dumb.

Side: It's only fair...
imrigone(768) Disputed
4 points

"lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't."

Neither the Big Bang Theory or Theory of Evolution claim that anything came from nothing.

"Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes."

Wrong. He would tell you that the Big Bang Theory starts slightly after the Big Bang got going, and does not currently describe what caused the Big Bang itself because we don't have conclusive data about that. There are quantum theories (technically hypotheses) that are being developed to try to figure this out, but they are limited by our technology, knowledge of quantum mechanics and current understanding of math. Therefore, none of these hypotheses are considered anywhere near as strong as Big Bang Theory. While God is a potential answer, it is not one we should jump to just because we don't currently have another one.

"Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there."

Only because you have no other answer to the conundrum, and are not interested in examining the evidence to find one.

"Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand."

Fair enough. However, the human mind is capable understanding quite a few things, and there is no reason to believe we have found the limit yet.

"HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains."

You are way behind the times on the scientific data. It is now known that we use all of it, and has been for quite some time now.

Side: Not on my watch!
anotherguy34(3) Disputed
1 point

lolthe reason you cant have conclusive data about the big bang, is because of, i daresay... their arrogance.conclusive data? OK, so a few atoms bumped into each other and, as a result of this such a complex thing such as the human brain came about as a result of this.If you were to say the origin of the "accident" of the atoms bumping into each other, which I will say is no accident, you'd have to say what or WHO started it. You seem very educated, i agree with you 160% about your implications that theists don't use logic when dealing with emotional topics such as these. Many things humans understand are rather otherworldly (here is something devoid of logic again). Humans do have a limit. And it cannot fathom the creation/origin of the universe. There is a verse?chapter in the Bible that states that God can use the simplest/most foolish thing and make the wisdom of Man seem illogical and unreasonable. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I was once in your position. Something convinced me that there is more to the World than the Natural. Something convinced me there where was another place... Due to skepticism, it does not make sense me telling you. This all I have to say for now, and I must say you are truly are one of a kind......

Side: It's only fair...
11 points

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, and have no place in a science classroom. See Kitzmiller vs Dover for more information.

Side: Not on my watch!
GlowingOne(3) Disputed
2 points

Actually they go hand in hand. I mean, we learn all about gravity in school. But no one ever talks about the fact that gravity had to come from somewhere. And sure we know atoms exist...but why? Did gravity and atoms just always exist? If people believe that, then how is that any less crazy or pseudo than believing these things must have been created by something. And like many theories that we learn in science class, creationism is just another theory. So as long as the schools are presenting it as theory and not fact, then there should be no problems.

Side: It's only fair...
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

No, evolution and creationism do not go hand in hand, they contradict each other. And no, creationism is not like any other theory you learn in science class, because all the available evidence contradicts it.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

And yet science try to do this by making Robots ... funny-right? Humans without Intelligence will contradict them selves.

Side: Not on my watch!
7 points

To teach them as equally valid and probable theories is to give undue credence to the pseudoscience of creationism.

Side: Not on my watch!
4 points

Evolution is still within itself a theory. It has yet to be factually proven as a definite, hence the name "Theory of Evolution".

Just due to you and I being different than the accepted normalcy of things does not mean we should oppress the mindsets of others.

I am saying that since both are technically theories should they not both be taught?

Side: Not on my watch!
6 points

The theory that we are made up of cells is cell theory. The theory that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The theory that gravity is a force that keeps us down is gravitational theory.

In science, theories are not called theories because there is not sufficient evidence to support them. They are called theories because science is cautious, and avoids absolutes. Not all the questions raised by evolution have been answered, not by far, but it is exhaustively evidenced. Creationism is, as of yet, supported by literally no valid evidence.

PS: I like your avatar.

Side: Not on my watch!
ThomasLocke(9) Disputed
3 points

They already have a venue where one can learn creationism...it's called church.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

technically Christianity is Not a theory :)

Science tries to make it look that way. As you said "Ignorance is Bliss", right?

Side: Not on my watch!
protazoa(428) Disputed
1 point

saying something is 'proven' is an archaic methodology of scientific nomenclature, as it does not leave any room for growth.

in modern science, a theory is a supported hypothesis. Creationism is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis. Those are not taught in school. After all, I may have the hypothesis that the moon is made of ice cream. Until I both test and validate that hypothesis it will not be taught in schools.

Side: It's only fair...
4 points

If they wan't to teach creationism in Religious Education, then let them. But it should not, and I will never condone it, being taught in science, as is is not science. It is a religious belief and should be taught as such.

Side: Not on my watch!
3 points

assumes over-dramatic heroic stance while looking at nothing in particular somewhere in the distance with a determined look on my face Not on MY watch!

Side: Not on my watch!
2 points

This is the kind of hero the world needs right now. One that has a determined face.

Side: Not on my watch!
0 points

"This is the kind of hero the world needs right now. One that has a determined face."

XD Indeed

Side: Not on my watch!
3 points

Creationism can be taught in schools as soon as they can find plenty of evidence to back up their claims. (No, a book does NOT count!)

Side: Not on my watch!
2 points

Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact. But, it is the most logical theory of biological development that humanity as a whole can come up with. If there is freedom of religion in a country, and no designated religion, then the ideas of religion should not be taught in schools if they are being taught in a way that encourages students to convert to this religion/religions. I do believe that students should be taught about certain religions in school, as they are a major part of history, but if any more is taught than just facts about religions, it could be corrupting the minds of students everywhere. The reason creationism should not be taught as a factual belief is that it is an aspect of a religion. If we have freedom of religion, then schools should teach only about facts that humans have agreed on as fact or at least theories of life. The beliefs in religions are not agreed on as common human knowledge, so they should not be taught as fact. The reason that the theory of evolution should be taught in schools is because it is not an aspect of any religion in particular, and is considered common human knowledge. Now some people may disagree with that it is not an aspect of any religion. Some people may consider things like the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, to be of a part of atheism. Let me set something clear...

Definition of atheism: The belief that there is no god or any other omnipotent entity.

And Nothing Else! Things like evolution and the big bang have nothing to do with this. You do not have to believe in the big bang or evolution just because you are an atheist. You can technically be religious and still believe in the big bang and evolution and stuff also (I do realize that in some religions, it is apparently impossible to believe in these things and still be a member of that religion, but I am not an expert in religion itself, so i'll leave you to figure out contradictions like this on your own if you choose to be religious). I do not believe that it should ever be flat out stated by a teacher in school, that there is no god, or your religion is false. But not teaching the theory of evolution in school because it is against a religion is a very unwise choice. Some of you may also think "Why can't schools just not teach beliefs of any religion, or anything against religion?" If we were to do this, then practically nothing could be taught. It could be part of some religion that 2+2 does not equal 4. Does that mean that we are going to stop teaching it? Of course not. So there are naturally going to have to be things taught in schools that are against some religions. Another point is that religions disagree with each other. So how could we ever teach about religion if there is no designated religion to teach. I am horrible at concluding things, so I suppose I will just leave it at that, please respond.

Side: Not on my watch!
3 points

Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact.

It is not unproven and it is far from simple. The amount of evidence for The Theory of Evolution is staggering (I would provide links, but you can Google it, as this is a general matter). Comprehend that in scientific phraseology a theory is (concisely) a model which explains findings, and data. For example, experiments and investigations have shown biological matter to be composed of minuscule bodies which carry out all the basic functions of life. these are called cells, and Cell Theory explains what they are and what they do. The label theory does not change the fact that we are made of cells.

Side: It's only fair...
1 point

I largely agree with this. If creationism is to be taught, it's better off taught in religious studies class than in science class.

The fact is that no matter how much or how little scientific evidence there is to support creationism, the basis of this theory is the assumption that there is a God. Scientific study is conducted to give support for this assumption, not to question it. Hence it is fundamentally a religious subject.

On the contrary, evolutionism makes no initial assumptions about the existence of deities. It is incompatible with some (not all) religious beliefs, but that in itself doesn't make it an atheist theory. It's merely a secular theory - i.e. one that makes no comment over whether or not God exists. Hence evolutionism should be taught in science, a subject that deals with theories on the way the world works, as observed through objective experimentation and logic, completely independent of religious belief.

Side: Not on my watch!
2 points

Only science should be taught in a science class. Creationism is not scientific. At best, it is an untested hypothesis. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory with many years of evidence from nature to support it. Creationism is based solely on the words inscribed in a holy book.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

No. Reason being: Evolution is proven. Creation is a Christian/Catholic myth.

Side: Not on my watch!
DaWolfman(3318) Disputed
1 point

Though my idealogy may fall under the Theory of Evolution; to say Evolution is fact is far fetched.

Pieces of the puzzle are falling together rather nicely, however the pieces haven't connected perfectly especially not well enough to say proven.

Side: Not on my watch!
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

The theory of evolution in its simplest form states that allele frequencies within a population change over time. This is a fact and it is observable every day.

It is easy to get the process confused with evolutionary specifics, such as who descended from who, and when, and of these particulars we may never be sure. These gaps do not disprove evolution as a real process, they merely highlight questions we have about how evolution works and the effects it has had.

Evolution will never be proven because proof is the domain of mathematics and logic. It can only be infinitely evidenced.

Side: Not on my watch!
TheHallow1(74) Disputed
1 point

It's been proven that species change over time. Hence: Evolution. We just aren't 100% sure HOW it happens. Hence: Evolution Theory.

Side: Not on my watch!
anotherguy34(3) Disputed
-1 points

Evolution IS A THEORY not proven, And not proven wrong. In other words you are teaching a bunch of kids my age something that hasn't been proven. AS IF IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WERE TRUE, Which is just as dumb as creationism is perceived.

Side: It's only fair...
TheHallow1(74) Disputed
1 point

XD Whatever helps you sleep at night. Unfortunately for you, Evolution has been proven and no amount of religious delusion is going to prove otherwise.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

Evolution comes in two forms

One as a fact, scientists do not dispute that evolution HAPPENS.

Two as a theory, natural selection, which experienced large backlash from religious communities because it made intelligent design seem more like a blind man using building blocks, rather than truly "intelligent design"

God as a theory has no scientific backing and thus should not be taught unless at private schools. Who would pay money to go to that school? Who knows XD

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not. whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth. you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds. you are unique and amazing as an individual and i dont see how you cannot see the evidance within that.

Side: It's only fair...
aveskde(1934) Disputed
3 points

i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not.

A school's subject matter is (in best efforts) based upon reality. To that end, evidence-based curricula are use. Science is one of this, so is history. It is not the prerogative of teachers to spread myth and fantasy as fact.

whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth.

This argument is one based on equivocation, confusing "trust without evidence" for "reliability of senses."

you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds.

Every object in the universe occupies a state which has a vanishingly small chance of occurring in precisely that pattern. Calling something unlikely based on your assumptions therefore has little meaning. The chance that you would sit in your chair, the atoms occupying the exact positions which they do, is almost infinitely unlikely but we are not looking for exact states in a phase space. We are looking for regions of states, which reduces the rarity by many orders of magnitude.

it also doesn't matter how incredulous you are towards a scientific theory. Science education isn't based on your ability to be convinced, it is based on fact, and that is why science education will continue to teach evolution.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

No, because biology is a science and therefore encompasses scientific theories. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. That is because creationism can't be proven scientifically. Try again! :)

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

If creationism is to be taught in schools, it relies on the religion that is most prevalent in that country being correct.

In the case of America, from where most people on this webpage are, that would be christianity.

The whole of Christian mythology is absurd.

If we accept the christian message, we have to accept also that christ was god come to earth to spare us for our sins, correct?

Ok... What about the people who came before Christ appeased us? Are they all doomed, purely because god couldn't be bothered to save their souls at the time? He was still throwing stroppy little tantrum?

Not only that, but Christ died to save us from God's wrath, so therefore, he died to appease God. However, if he were God, then the ridiculous and almost psychotic argument of Christianity is that God came to earth to be tortured to death by his people, so that he could appease himself and forgive his people, the creation.

That's like a parent, angry at their child, asking their child to stab them so that the child can be forgiven and the parent's anger removed...

That just makes perfect logical clarity. Or, instead, it makes Christianity sound like a sado masochistic fetish party.

If Christianity is so faulty as to be disproved in 4 paragrpahs, then its core belief about how we all got here is not worthy of credence. People should be taught facts, which come from science, not these ridiculous mickey mouse bull shit ideals.

And I am being harsh, 'cause the real world is harsh, kid...

Side: Not on my watch!

Creationism is a religious subject, as such can't be allowed in schools. Evolution however doesn't fall into religious lines, as atheism is not a religion. So one is legal in school, the other is not.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

The way they are doing it, no. Not at all.

There's one big difference between teaching myths that shouldn't be taken serious, considering the evidence against them, in a separate classroom, and teaching myths and stating them as facts, in a science classroom, and that they should be taken seriously over any evidence against them.

I wouldn't have a problem with teaching it in the former sense. This is not what's being done in certain countries, and I'm totally against that. Religion has no place in science classrooms.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

It's not even given any credibility in my country (Ireland ) in fact if you came out with some of the creationist views you would be laughed at ....sent to an asylum ...or totally ignored...any one who believes in any of this grade a nonsense is by any reasonable standards insane and should be kept away from sharp objects etc

Side: Not on my watch!

This isn't even an argument, evolution is backed up by facts, reason, observation, etc. creationism barely even counts as a hypothesis, believe whatever you want to believe but public schools paid by tax dollars should only teach scientific fact, not fairytales.

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

Fairy tales belong in church, not schools..........................................

Side: Not on my watch!
1 point

No, creationism is a religious belief and should not be part of any curriculum in a public school system, outside of learning about religions. It should never be taught as fact, because it is not a fact, cannot be proven, cannot be observed, and is completely out of sync with biology, and the laws of nature. Its complete hogwash.

Side: Not on my watch!
-3 points
DaWolfman(3318) Disputed
2 points

Jesus get yourself to an institution!

Side: Not on my watch!
0 points

pllease brother it is as you say we am scared of the world we walk in and in order for me to find my brain could you please help a Crazy man find his sanity? all i ask is that you tell me light and dark through only your eyes and your opinions, so maybe i can drink from your fountain of knowledge?

Side: Not on my watch!