CreateDebate


Debate Info

160
173
Yes No
Debate Score:333
Arguments:250
Total Votes:357
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (107)
 
 No (112)

Debate Creator

Rogue77(9) pic



Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?

Yes

Side Score: 160
VS.

No

Side Score: 173
16 points

Based on how this is worded, I have to say yes. But I do strongly disagree with one way this could be interpreted.

If kids want to be taught creationism, the should be allowed to seek it out with their parents, churches, books, the internet etc. I do not believe in blanket censorship of ideas.

But if the poster had added the words "in schools" at the end of the sentence, I'd be on the "no" side. Seriously, who would think that kids have the right, knowledge or capability to start cherry-picking their own curriculum?

And actually, even then, I would be okay with them learning about creationism in a comparative religions, philosophy or modern issues class. Just not in a science class.

Side: Yes
Rogue77(9) Disputed
3 points

What is the difference between a child choosing to learn about religion on their own outside of school and them choosing to learn about in school in a class? They are still making the same decision, just in a different context.

Side: No
8 points

Of course. But the context is important.

It is inappropriate to teach creationism in a science class because it cannot be supported by the scientific method.

But I don't feel we should censor ideas or remove people's abilities to investigate concepts independent of school, nor do I think it would be possible to do so.

Ultimately, whether the learn about evolution in school or not appears to be irelevent anyway. Public schools have been teaching evolution in most of the US for several generations now, yet a notable percentage of people in this country who went to public school disbelieve it anyway.

We would be better served by focusing on teaching logic and reason rather than trying to censor subjects that are devoid of either.

Side: No
3 points

This needs to be up-voted more. You said it in such a graceful, intelligent manner and covered all the holes.

Side: Yes
2 points

Of course, I approve and agree. And thanks, I appreciate your thought.

Side: Yes

If you are a creationist a legitimate science class will likely offend your views. If you are a socialist a legitimate economics or history class will be offensive to your views. If you are fat and think your healthy and legitimate health class will be offensive to your views.

The only reason I think they should have the option is because I don't think the government should be involved in education.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

Creationism is not a science, it's not even a study. It's a collection of bronze age myths, nothing real.

Side: No
GuitaristDog(2546) Clarified
2 points

"If you are a creationist a legitimate science class will likely offend your views."

Please point to the part where I said creationism is science.

Side: Yes
LordChallen(184) Disputed
2 points

Creationism is a science and I do study it. So there. - - - - - - - - -

Side: Yes
5 points

They could just teach creationism in Church?

Side: Yes
2 points

It has a place there. In government funded public school, not so much....particularly not in a science class. It amuses me that people get so worried about whether or not creationism is getting taught in schools when it is plastered all around their children's lives in church, at home online, etc. They don't just want to argue with evolution, they want to erase it entirely.

Side: Yes
LordChallen(184) Disputed
2 points

I understand why religion had to be taken out of school. But I think that I could be a serious science.

I have a regret.

In the old days, we had witches and such for our medicine. They were actually quite effective. They used principles such as divining and such to determine the life force of food. Then sugar came along. The Holy Crusades were really about sugar and spices. The Knights went into Jerusalem and quickly became addicted to it. Sugar was extracted from Sugar Beats at the time. The Knights took it back to England and France where people there also got addicted to it.

The poor white folk of Europe were not used to the sugar and had to concept of "moderation" with it. People would go into sugar shock and/or basically go crazy. Of course, they would call for the local "medicine woman" to help. She would quickly realize what was wrong and basically say there wasn't anything she could do, it just had to wear off.

Soon the women were being accused of "bewitching people." The church also became involved in the sugar trade. The Witches condemned Sugar as "dead food" and forbid anyone to use it. The powers that be didn't like that and forbid women from practicing medicine and actually made crime punishable by death.

About the same time, cats were considered to be the Witch's Companions were also condemned to death. This allowed an over growth of rats that brought the plague.

The schools and universities couldn't do much about the plague. Many of the doctors actually died.

Medical Science then became based upon digging up freshly dead bodies and cutting them up. Now those people are called heroes. If I did that even today, I would be locked up a lunatic.

I say that "truth happens." And thus, we have what we have. I cannot justify in my feelings changing history. But I wonder what would have happened if natural healing was given the same attention.

Much of university education was about "prestige."

Natural Healing was based a lot upon eating right, faith, and herbal medicine.

Allopathic Medicine tries to imply that all disease is somehow a germ, disorder, genetic, or something else can be explained with a "scientific discovery."

Natural Medicine says "eat right, exercise, take time to rest and play, and occasionally smoke. . . . er, I mean take herb."

Modern Science says, "it is foolish to assume herb is going to heal cancer." And I agree. But many of the disease exist because we ignore the rules of natural medicine. Insanity is almost directly tied to sugar and processed foods. Sugar is a drug, not unlike heroine. It modifies behavior in children and adults.

And what the hell does this have to do with Creationism?. . . . . . I'm thinking, I'm thinking.

Natural Medicine is strongly tied to the idea that we were created in such a way. There is a belief that God created a herb or cure for any aliment. Creationism tries all things together, as if there was purpose and relationship between all things. (I'm doing good here.) Creationism implies that we all tried together and that we are not just of the same species, but of the same family.

They don't just want to argue with evolution, they want to erase it entirely.

I don't need to argue with evolution. But evolutionists obviously want to erase creationism. Which is suspicious to me. Creationism is part of history, part of culture, part of who we are. Even if don't believe it, we disrespect it so? I don't believe in Blood Letting, or using Mercury to heal people, but I am not offended hearing about it. It's what "modern medicine" used to do. . . . . ignorant bastards.

Side: No
3 points

Yes its really up to the person's choice if they want to be taught about creationism.

Side: Yes

I'm back, again.

Yeah, I am on the same page with you on this. Purely because I think that, at least where education is concerned, giving students more choice as to what they can study is better.

We have to remember two things, though:

1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.

2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.

Side: Yes
Srom(12197) Disputed
3 points

1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.

Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it.

2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.

Actually it can be because I have a book that explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sources. If you want to read in on it the book is called : I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Side: No
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.

This way deformed children may want for they children(if they survive for so long to have any) ...for example cut out mathematics ...or physics ...what is it even good for?... Yeah?

Does it sounds good?

Whole world is advancing but US goes back into the dark age...

Side: No
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
3 points

Small children are not able to recognize difference between idiotic bronze age myth and reality, so NO.

Side: No
LordChallen(184) Disputed
2 points

I could say the same about you. I think that you are out of touch with reality. But then, reality is a perspective.

Side: Yes
2 points

Kids can learn about mythology just fine. I was taught and read a lot about the greek gods when i was a kid (Hercules was one of my favorite movies, even though know i know it was nothing like the original tales) and yet I never thought those stories to be anything other than stories.

you don't even have to go into great detail about creationalsim. A simple definition would suffice. Even though students will recognize evolution as the most likely theory, it doesn't help to completely sensor outdated theories like creationalsim. If we still teach that there was theory that the world was flat, why can't we tell students what creationalism is?

Side: Yes
3 points

All schools should be private so parents can pick and choose the appropriate curriculum.

Public schools are beholden to the government for funding, not to the parents. Therefore they have little or no incentive to accede to the parents' wishes, when those wishes conflict with the wishes of the government. If Parents were the direct source of funding (or for choosing funding, such as with voucher programs) the schools would be beholden to the parents, not the government.

Students and parents should be able to choose their curriculum.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

So teaching various world mythologies as a real stuff?

Like flat Earth from Bible/Quran/Torah as and alternative to Geography?

African gods raping each other and giving birth from their foreheads as an alternative to biology?

Astrology instead of Astronomy? Your children would laughable idiots without future.

Side: No
copycat042(166) Disputed
2 points

So, there would be a free market of ideas, right? So long as we make sure we have a free society and let faulty ideas fail on their own merit, the best, and most accurate, ideas will prosper, and foster prosperity.

The children of these parents may not go into certain sciences.

Maybe they do not prosper and they change their values, choosing differently for their children?

At any rate, I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most, than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.

Side: Yes
3 points

I don't see why not, just as long as they understand that creationism won't help them become anything other than a priest or a theologian.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
3 points

Then there is no reason to introduce it in non specialized schools.

Side: No
3 points

The main point of school is to prepare people for their future careers. Learning creationism does not help anyone for their career except future priests and theologians.

Side: No

Although creationism isn't really something that I believe, it should be part of the freely flowing ideas circulating all curriculum because people should be able to choose as to what they wish to believe. This is why government should get out of education and allow the market to determine where money should be allocated, so if creationists want to teach, learn and research creationism, the market of ideas will provide the funding, the same goes for evolution.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

What about Islamic Sunday schools? Teaching boys that how to cut off leg to thief, that they should hate non Muslims, teaching girls that they are not equal to men... are these things OK too?

Side: No
2 points

Congratulations on pointing out the extreme nonsensical irrelevant to the debate.

As for the outlandish statement, Islamic religion is a peaceful religion except for the extreme. Why would that be tolerated anyway, they can go to a different school or establish new one.

Side: Yes
2 points

As much as I hate creationism, I think it should be a basic right that people can choose to be taught it or choose not the be taught it. However, I would also argue that everyone should be taught about evolution. That should be mandatory.

Side: Yes
2 points

I have a friend who is very religious and also homeschools her kids. She Teaches both "intelligent design" and evolution as theories.

Side: Yes
2 points

I think that you would always need to be presented with both sides of the argument.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

That's the thing there are no two sides...

There's Evolution vs. thousands of different stone/bronze age myths...

It's like forcing into studies about horses made up study about unicorns, simply because there is no evidence for them BUT they were mentioned in many myths...

Side: No
2 points

Children should have an option be taught about religions in general to help them become more tolerant, accepting, and generally knowledgable. They should not be taught creationism in lieu of evolution, however, and not in a science class but in a religions class. Teaching these things to older students, in a high school or junior high school setting, would probably be more appropriate than elementary. Students should have the freedom to choose whether or not to believe these things.

Side: Yes
1 point

I personally believe that creationism and evolution should be separate classes from science and should be taken as a choice a one or the other kind of deal also we could add to that list the theory of intelligent design also called divine intervention.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes. Students have the right to investigate every theory and see if they want to believe it. People have the right to choose their beliefs.

Side: Yes
Doherty95(299) Disputed
1 point

If it is in a religion class than i have no problem with them being taught it, in a science class they should not because it is not science.Also students shouldn't be taught it is a theory on how life came about because it has no evidence for it and by calling it a theory it makes it seem as if it is on equal footing with evolution and other scientific theories which it is not.

Side: No
1 point

As far as they choose any other course to study in school, absolutely.

But, as far as evolution vss. creation is concerned, that should be up to the parents what they want their children to know. Just like sex education. When it comes to crossing swords with the morals and religious beliefs I want my kids to have, hands off!

Kids aren't stupid, so don't underestimate them. Four-year-olds ask endless 'whys' for a reason--they want to know why. I do, too. If I'm told to believe something there had better be a good reason to.

Evolution is every bit as much a religion as creation is, but its purpose is selfish, and not at all altruistic.

Side: Yes

I think Creationism can be taught in schools along with Evolution and other similar theories.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes Creation, because the the bottom line is whether a day was a day or several million years, there was a Creator involved

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Creation can't be taught in school since there is no actual information to discuss. You can't fill a five minute lecture with the amount of unified information on Creation. The lecture would be "Some time ago God created everything. We aren't sure how long ago because people can't agree on that. We are also not sure how long it took God to do it, since there is no consensus on that. But, we know God created everything. Um, well that's all we know about creation for sure, next subject".

Side: No
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Sure it can

Watch the Genesis code

^^^^^^^^^

https://youtu.be/GgO0gGulo

Side: Yes
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Sure you can

Watch the Genesis Code

https://youtu.be/GgO0gGulo

Side: Yes
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

And the Creator acknowledged can be called Intelligent Design

But atleast it's closer to sensible truth then inteligence from nothing

Side: Yes
0 points

yes its their choice if they want to

they shouldnt be forced to believe in a false god

Side: Yes
1 point

Or visa versa as is the current situation. Right now kids are virtually having Atheism rammed down there throats in science class.

Side: Yes
1 point

Did you watch God is Not Dead The movie, very good. I'd recommend it to all.

Atheism isn't just being spoon speed it is force fed.

It is as much of a belief and religion as any other, so why is it allowed to have selective support in schools

Side: Yes
4 points

I do not believe that students should be allowed to opt into a class about creationism since there is no scientific grounding behind it. The only thing children should learn about in schools are things that have significant evidence to support them.

Side: No
NivaZimel(135) Disputed
1 point

There's no scientific grounding for evolution or philosophy, either.

Kids should be taught how to manipulate their financial and working life once they are out of school. They should be taught exactly how they are manipulated themselves by the powers that be and how to deal with it. They should learn their multiplication tables, and how to do math on paper and not with a machine. Machines are okay until they break down and render their user unable to think for himself.

Side: Yes
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is not science, it's a preferred philosophical model for most people who do not want to believe God rules over them, and should not be taught as science in public schools. There is no need to teach Creation or Evolution in the general curriculum. They should just stick to observational and applied science, math, and technology, language skills, history...evolution has no real value in education and should not be paid for my taxes. It's government controlled religion force in the public schools and should be completely purged from all textbooks except maybe for philosophical/religion studies and I really don't think those things should be taxpayer funded either. It's a waste of time and money.

Side: Yes
3 points

In school?

No. That's ridiculous. Creationism is proven to be incorrect. Might as well teach the earth is flat or the stars are holes in the sky.

You could teach about creationism, in the same context we teach about Greek gods.

Side: No
LordChallen(184) Disputed
1 point

Who has proven Creationism false. Creationism is a concept, not a specific story. Everything has their different ideas of what it was. Christians use Adam, Egyptians Ra, Nut, Osiris, Iris, Seth, and Neffie.

I find truth in all of them. There is a Mother Eve, though the timing is a little off from the Bible. All living humans can be traced back to Mother Eve. She was a woman who developed the Mitochondria DNA. All though there were other women in her tribe, all of their DNA has been breed out. Eve had two daughter from whom the rest of the human race came from.

There is a story that the Creator of Man had a dream, (we won't get into how) and had the desire to create man. He tried several times, but each time he failed, they were all like the other animals and lacked the animation of independent thinking.

(Alright, we'll get into a that stuff I wasn't going to get into.) The story says that creator was like a Child God and isolated (for reasons we won't get into) and thought he was the only God. Thus the phrase "I am the Only God." The mother sent in a couple of members of her team to help him. The mother sent the dream to the creator of the Eternal Race of Man. The Creator found them to be beautiful and tied to create them. Anyway, every time he tried, the creation fell short but he kept trying.

On the last attempt the Creator was sent another dream and this time it told him to "Breathe Life into Man." And so the Creator did so. Immediately it became apparent He had made a mistake. Man suddenly had the power of creation and was like unto the Gods.

The Story says that when God breathed Life in Man, God was concerned. This new found power enable men to do things not before available to them. The agent sent by the "Mother" approached Eve and convinced her to partake of the forbidden fruit. Which she, and then see things that made her afraid, she convinced Adam to as well. Adam did, and when the forbidden knowledge Adam, the Creator saw it and wanted it. He tried to remove the power from Adam. The power left Adam and entered Eve. Thus the story that God took Adams Rib to create Eve.

And while these stories couldn't have happened in real time, they do tell a story that can be found in the science. While I don't see God as a bad guy, as I once did, there was a time that people "worshiped in fear" and they knew why. Also, Adam and Eve were placed into a "deep sleep" there is no evidence that we have woken up.

Anyway, I don't see Creationism a waste of time.

Side: Yes
MrPrime(268) Disputed
4 points

I think we agree that Creationism is not taught is science class. I mean you can mention it in a few sentences but that's about it.

So if science class is out, where do you teach it? It does not seem to fit in a history class or a literature class. Seems like the only place it could fit is in a "religions studies" class. Such a class would explore all religions in a historical and social context, but even there it seems like overkill to go in to great detail about one theory from one religion? There is only so much time in a semester and "Creationism" is just a tiny tiny blip when looking at the entire history of religion.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
3 points

Creationism is the idea that humans were created out of nothing. This is false. It doesn't matter which version one talks about. That is a dishonest argument though because you know that it is the Christian version which Christians wish to indoctrinate, and it is meant to replace the proven theory of evolution. Your dishonesty aside, you are still incorrect. Creationism is false, and I did not say as much, but yes, a waste of time if it is taken seriously.

Side: No
Thoughtz(2) Disputed
1 point

When was creationism proven incorrect? You need to define your definition of what qualifies something to be "proven incorrect". Regardless, your logic is flawed. Based on your logic, no scientific theories should be taught in school either.

Side: Yes
0 points

Any proof that creationism is proven incorrect? Your claims are insufficient since there is no valid explanation on why you disproved the said belief.

Side: Yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Creationism is the idea that humans were created from nothing. We know for a fact that we were not created from nothing. Therefore my claims are sufficient and there is a valid explanation on why said belief has been disproved.

Side: No
3 points

What is the idea of education? It is to make the population more intelligent and able people. Does the current subject matter do this? Yes, it does. The average person in the United States is more knowledgeable than the average person in most other times. What is creationism? It is the idea that existence is God's creation. How can understanding this theory and it's implications make a student more intelligent and more able? Perhaps you would say that understanding such an abstract concept could yield positive results for the all around intelligence of the student. To this I say that if we want our future to be more familiar with abstract ideas we may as well give them a well rounded curriculum of it so Philosophy would probably be a more appropriate subject. This subject has no reason in American education, so students should not even have the choice. If they want to learn about it they can and will look it up themselves.

Side: No
3 points

There is no scientific basis for creationism, while there is a large amount of evidence for evolution. All of the evidence we have points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and forming from natural processes.

Most issues that people have with evolution have been explained, and I have never seen a person who actually understands evolution argue against it. Evloution is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of biologists, while 46% of the American public believes that the earth was created by God some time in the last 10000 years as described by Genesis.

Finally, there are simply too many creation myths to teach. It seems hypocritical to me to only teach the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Genesis story. Even if only the top 10 religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Shinto) were taught, there would still be six creation myths to teach: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Baiha'i all share a creation story, and there is none in Buddhism.

This question is whether a student can opt in to learning creationism. That should also not be allowed, because I do not think that children should learn anything other than objective, scientifically supported facts, and creationism is neither of those.

Side: No
3 points

If they do, then they should also allow them to choose to be taugh the FSM version. you know, is as valid.

Side: No
2 points

What about teaching Nazi or communist ideology as a compulsory subject?

Side: No
2 points

LOL, aside from the fact that much of the school system is set up to tacitly promote socialism, this is an excellent point.

Side: No

No since it is just for the sake of informing them of religious beliefs. It is not necessary that they will believe it or not. Plus creationism is not about facts but relies on faith. Men are given the right to be informed.

Side: No
charlesisboz(9) Disputed
1 point

But it is taking up time which need to be used for other content. If someone is interested in religion, they have their priest to go to (and he would be far better imformed than a "mere" teacher).

Side: Yes
2 points

No, creationism is already part of History and literature curriculum, it's called mythology.

Side: No
2 points

Just ignore "Lordchallen", lol, he is new and hasn't learn to make valid and sounds arguments based on reason or logic. He just rants, to even respond to him would only encourage him.

Side: No
1 point

It's not the newness that causes the ranting.

Side: No
2 points

Like, "prayerfails" talked about leaving the site the other day, I feel like the people who are very obnoxious and rude r chasing away all the really good debaters that we all can learn from.

Side: No
1 point

Well, Whatever it is, I wouldn't encourage it, lol. I did the the same thing at first, as well. However, not to that extent and I wasn't as rude either. A lot of people have put a lot of work into trying to keep the site cordial, just trying to help... I may be wrong, just my opinion.

Side: No
2 points

No, students should not be able to choose to be taught creationism, this is assuming that you mean specific classes on creationism. Creationism comes from religious roots and religious teachings should not be taught in public schools. If students are interested in creationism they can certainly study it on their own time, the internet is a wonderful tool for self-teaching. It is also certainly wrong to teach creationism as fact, since there is clearly no evidence to support that it actually happened.

Side: No
1 point

When we say "students" I assume we are discussing the primary and secondary education of youth. That being the case when we say "students" should be allowed to choose their class I think we have to account for the weight of influence that parents have, and the likelihood that students with religious parents who want their kids to believe in creationism would pressure their kids to take those classes. Effectively, it becomes a moderately clever loophole by the conservative right to thwart attempts to keep theology out of our public schools.

The only place creationism has in public schools is alongside coursework in mythology and fiction. I have never seen any scientific evidence whatsoever to merit its placement anywhere else in curriculum.

Side: No
1 point

There was a creationist article besides evolution in my y8 biology textbook. I would have been mad, but someone had drawn dicks all over it, so it was just plain hilarious, to a 13 yr-old anyway.

Science is fact observation and analysis, not mythology.

Side: No

Should they be allowed to be taught that fairies do exist? No. The answer is no.

Side: No
1 point

Students should NOT be taught creationism AT ALL. The bible should only be taught as literature, since much of western culture is influenced by it, but kids have less of a developed mind and can lack maturity to make proper decisions, which make them more gullible to whatever and whoever influences their mind. If parents want to make them believe in it at home, then fine- but anything to be taught in an educational system must be backed up by hard evidence. Something creationism does not have.

Side: No
0 points

I don't see reason why they should be taught that some African good puked out whole world and made fist generation of people without knees... or similar stories...

Side: No
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Clarified
1 point

Any particular reason why you downvoted me without explanation?

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Although I mind a lot less now that so many others have upvoted. Now "yes" is the leading view, and even though I supported it due to linguistic technicalities, I was not hoping it would win...

Side: Yes