CreateDebate


Debate Info

42
80
No Yes
Debate Score:122
Arguments:81
Total Votes:134
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (34)
 
 Yes (46)

Debate Creator

Srom(12203) pic



Is it really neccessary to teach evolution in school?

I believe you shouldn't be able to teach them about evolution because in my school and town there is mostly Christians and if they start teaching evolution they will start getting confused on what really to believe man's way of creation or God's way of creation and also it might drop their faith down and they might become atheists. Also evolution is the key engine to atheism.

 

Also why should you able to teach something not everyone agree's on like evolution?

No

Side Score: 42
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 80
4 points

It's not necessary in the sense that children will die if they don't.

But it is the leading scientific theory on the progression of life, whether you agree with it or not. Thusly it is the theory that is taught in schools.

Side: No
4 points

Is it really necessary to have school? I mean, sure, being a third world country is bad, but it's totally do-able.

Side: No
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Give it a rest. The public education system is in the tank. It's an utter travesty of mediocrity. Let there be universal school choice and competition and watch what happens. But we can't ever get to real educational excellence because the control freaks of collectivistic tyranny can't stand the idea of others educating their own children as they see fit without the control freaks' input.

Side: No
2 points

Some don't believe evolution some believe in God. Theism/Atheism, depends on the students, district, and teacher.

Side: No

exactly

=====================================================

Side: No

No becasue people have diffrent opinions...............................

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

Using your argument Religion and History should not be taught either because people have different opinions about those two subjects, if we stopped teaching subjects on which peoples opinions differed then there would be no school

Side: Yes
1 point

I never said people should be taught my religion or anyone else's for that matter, people can belive what ever they choose to belive,I belive in christianity,I belive in god but do I go bragging my religion and telling everyone they should belive,no of course not. People have diffrent opinions like I said neither religion nore evolution should be taught at school.

Side: No
1 point

and I never said history should be taught at schools either.

Side: No
1 point

Thank you! Finally someone who understands!

Side: No

Why should you waste your breath on that

Side: No
df0512(27) Disputed
1 point

Its not a waste. It's the only explination for human life that can provide at least a shred of evidence. Creationism provides none.

Side: Yes
1 point

You can teach evolution which is a subject that many don't agree on but you can't teach different religions........ bias.

Side: No
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
2 points

Evolution is a science, not a religion.

Religion is religion.

If we don't teach evolution in schools, we might as well not teach any science in schools. Because, almost all of science goes against religious belief in SOME religion, right?

How about, no, we'll teach science in class, because scientific theories and laws have repeatable, experimental results which give them evidence of being relevant to the truth of reality. This includes evolution. Don't want to accept that? Oh well. School is a place to educate children and teenagers on subjects which are truthful and relevant to reality, and evolution has more evidence that makes it true above many religious creation myths. Therefore evolution deserves a mention in science classes.

Oiden pls. Y u do dis.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Nah. Evolution is a religion alright. It's the religion of the 'ol okey doke metaphysical naturalism.

Side: No

This would typically cause controversy but i dont think its a neccessary thing to teach but i would recommend it. Just like the theory of gravity its absurd to disprove in a typical human mind. Global Warming is a theory with evidence but it doesn't have a firm basis in school (probrably because its a more recent thing rather than an older thing). Its not bad to teach it at all. It depends on the school. With the separation of church and state school can teach what they think is a good thing to learn. I think you should at least learn about it but it doesnt have to be a neccessary thing in schools.

Side: No
8 points

Also why should you able to teach something not everyone agree's on

With that attitude nothing at all should be taught to anyone!

You think creationism should be taught? Well, I do not agree with that idiotic fantasy!

Side: Yes
4 points

Evolution, in it's basic theory is an undeniable fact

Evolution:

1) species reproduce a lot

2) all populations (except humans because of our tech) stay roughly the same size

3) there are limited resources but the amount available at a time is usually the same

4) in reproduction, generally no one is the same, there is to much variation

5) much of this variation is inheritable

Therefore each individual must struggle to survive, those who are best suited to the task are more likely to survive and pass down their traits, this is natural selection.

(note these next five points are copy-pastes and i do not claim them as my own work)

To summarise Darwin's Theory of Evolution;

1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.

2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.

3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.

4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.

5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits

are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

(copy-paste over)

that is evolution in a nutshell.

Also here's a question for you:

If Adam and Eve were real where did variation come from?

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

And therefore all species derive from a common ancestry? You sort of left that out.

Side: No
Gokumohan(334) Disputed
1 point

That is the theory part of evolution .

Side: Yes

Also why should you able to teach something not everyone agree's on like evolution?

Teaching abstinence as the only manner of STD and pregnancy prevention in a health class is an example of the public school system abusing their informative power to teach something not everyone agrees on and, indeed, is harmful to the public. Teaching evolution in schools doesn't do this because it's the leading scientific theory (taught in science classes), and any resulting atheism is not intrinsically bad for society.

in my school and town there is mostly Christians and if they start teaching evolution they will start getting confused on what really to believe man's way of creation or God's way of creation

First I would like to suggest you substitute "confused" in this segment for "educated."

Second I would like to say that for many, many Christians evolution doesn't pose any threat to their faith. Evolution doesn't refute god or the Bible or Christianity, nor does it attempt to. Perhaps evolution is the mechanism god set in place to develop the species he created; this is a theory held by many contemporary Christians.

When science reveals something about our universe that upsets religions per-existing explanation, the religious have two choices; adapt or deny. You can change and alter your faith to suit the changing world (as the Church and Christians worldwide have done for centuries) or you can deny the truth of the matter (again, not something new to Christianity). You do not have the right to deny other people the right to learn scientific facts or theories just because they might refute your own preconceived ideas about the universe. When science rightly challenges religion, religion can change, religion can ignore science, but religion can not demand that other people should not have access to the information science challenges religion with.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Teaching abstinence as the only manner of STD and pregnancy prevention in a health class is an example of the public school system abusing their informative power to teach something not everyone agrees on and, indeed, is harmful to the public. Teaching evolution in schools doesn't do this because it's the leading scientific theory (taught in science classes), and any resulting atheism is not intrinsically bad for society.

Encouraging abstinence and sexual fidelity in marriage is bad for society? What a load of crap. What we really have is the explosion of STDs and pregnancy as a direct result of sexual promiscuity encouraged everywhere, including the schools. The government has business getting involved in our children’s sexual mores in the first place. Atheism is not intrinsically bad for society? Let’s review its intellectual, it’s blatant violations of individual liberty in the schools.

First I would like to suggest you substitute "confused" in this segment for "educated."

First I would like to suggest you substitute educated for deluded by the unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry.

Second I would like to say that for many, many Christians evolution doesn't pose any threat to their faith. Evolution doesn't refute god or the Bible or Christianity, nor does it attempt to. Perhaps evolution is the mechanism god set in place to develop the species he created; this is a theory held by many contemporary Christians.

Second, I would like to say that for most orthodox Christians evolution is a load of crap that most certainly does attempt to refute the truth with its unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry and that we are not deceived. It is not compatible with the higher doctrinal/theological concerns of the Bible.

When science reveals something about our universe that upsets religions per-existing explanation, the religious have two choices; adapt or deny.

Science has never revealed anything about the universe that overthrows the Bible.

You can change and alter your faith to suit the changing world (as the Church and Christians worldwide have done for centuries) or you can deny the truth of the matter (again, not something new to Christianity).

You can choose to believe in your unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t have a leg to stand on if your presupposition is wrong.

You do not have the right to deny other people the right to learn scientific facts or theories just because they might refute your own preconceived ideas about the universe.

Every human being has every right in the world to tell you to take your unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry and shove it. The current public education system is a collectivist tyranny that violates the natural rights of all men.

When science rightly challenges religion, religion can change, religion can ignore science, but religion can not demand that other people should not have access to the information science challenges religion with.

Science cannot and does not overthrow anything in the Bible, but the practitioners of scientism, with their unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry, are a bunch thugs who are the only ones shoving their religion down the throats of others in the schools.

Side: No
2 points

If people in your town become atheists because they were educated about evolution, then so be it. You sound like you're afraid someone is letting the cat out of the bag, like they're telling them santa clause isn't real. And yes, that's how it is. If education leads you to becoming an atheist, so be it. Apparently you know better.

Side: Yes
2 points

I go to BYU-Idaho a mormon school. (yes I'm mormon). Evolution is tought at my school because were open minded enough to know that the idea of evolution doesn't denote the existence of a God.

Even if I didn't think it was true it doesn't matter. I'm a psychology major. Just because I learn about Frued doesn't mean I want to have sex with my mother.. You get what I'm saying?

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

But that's not the point at all. I don't want strangers teaching my children what is true or not true about anything. That's my job. My children, like their father, are well-versed in evolutionary theory. I made sure of it. They also know it's a load of crap if its underlying metaphysical presupposition is wrong. That they would have never gotten from a public school teacher. I home schooled my kids. We've got an engineer, a math teacher and a marine combat officer. The public education system does not challenge children to think critically about evolution, but to accept it as an irrefutable fact. I know better and so do my children.

Side: No
2 points

Wait a moment.. We were taught about evolution like the Charles Darwin perspective, and seen as we are studying in a Catholic school in my country, they also taught us about the creation of the world and those kinds of stuff. I dont think that teaching evolution would be a hindrance to our belief. I think it would be necessary to teach evolution because at least we have a different way of knowing where we came from. Besides, knowledge is power. We wouldnt lose anything if we learn..

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes. Creationism was dropped from scientific study or even acknowledgement as a hypothesis in 18-freakin-50. Its time to let science teachers teach real SCIENCE and not fairytales.

Side: Yes
2 points

god made evolution happen so yes it should be taught in schools

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

And we know this is true because RandomDude says so, and of course RandomDude has every right in the world to impose his religion on everyone else. It says so in the Bill of Rights. I just can't that passage right now.

Side: No
2 points

They should I may not believe it but it gives people more of a choice of what to believe in. Not eveything in a christianslfie is stopping christians not hearing atheist arguments.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

This should not be matter of choice ... teaching core scientific principle or magical story ...what about give them to chose between Chemistry and Alchemy? or between round Earth or "bible correct" flat Earth in Geography class?

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

He hasn't said it should be a choice in what you learn he said it should be taught as knowing about evolution would give people a choice in what they choose to believe

Side: Yes
Vermink(1943) Disputed
1 point

Wanting to be a christian or atheist is a choice and one that everyone should have I never said that people should choose alchemy or chemistry but there are always choices regarding religion. As it sets your lifestyle. I'm saying that they should so kids get both sides of it.

Side: Yes
2 points

What i'd like to know is why some Christians are worried that kids being taught evolution will turn them into Atheists, are they really that scared that their faith is so flimsy they will turn their back on religion just because they know about where mankind came from? If their kids faith is that weak anyway they will turn on the church eventually and why should'nt their faith be tested after all Jesus had his tested and wasn't it God himself that gave mankind free will to make up his own mind, schools giving kids the information to make a decision is really just following Gods will preventing them from using their free will is going against God

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Evolutionary theory is an arrogant, blasphemous, unfalsifiable load of crap.

Side: No
1 point

Of course it should be taught and if people decide to become Atheist's fine, I also think that all aspects of Religion and other Religions and not just Christianity should be taught that way there might be less intolerance to people of different faiths.

There are also a lot of Christians that believe in Evolution, people should be educated and then they can make up their own minds about which path they want to follow.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is not matter of opinion it's an important fact. Just because it does not fit in prefered Bronze Age myth doesn't matter.

All Abrahamic religions teaches that Earth is flat. Should we modify Geography curriculum to not to harm religious people?

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

Just because it is a fact does not mean people dont believe it and evrything is a matter of opinion, most people know that Evolution is a fact but there are some that believe it that is their opinion but it should still be taught in school. A lot of people are religious and follow different Religions that is why Religion should also be taught. I never said anything about adjusting the curriculum to suit people who follow Abrahamic religions so I dont know where your comment about Geography comes from.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Hogwash. Judeo-Christianity does not teach that the world is flat. The Bible merely tells us an historical fact: the pre-scientific believers of old believed the world was flat, just like everybody else of their time. As for evolutionary theory, it's predicated on a metaphysical naturalism (materialism)/a methodological naturalism that assumes that all of natural history is an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect. The Bible holds that natural history is a series of creative events. You weren't there. You don't know. You're just assuming the religion of your Darwinism, and no one has the right to impose one's religion on another. Period.

Side: Yes
1 point

It is absolutely necessary to teach evolution is school.

Not only is evolution true; but there is an excellent religious argument to be made for why teaching evolution is absolutely necessary. Unless people learn about evolution, their faith in religion is blind, thereby rending their faith meaningless. Armed with the knowledge of evolution, one can make an informed choice in relation to religion. If one makes an informed choice to accept religion, irrespective of the decision to accept or deny evolution, then their religious beliefs become more significant. Furthermore, in this day and age, you're never going to escape evolutionary theory. You're going to encounter it at some point, so it may be better than they are taught about evolution through proper educational channels as opposed to informal (and possibly inaccurate) sources.

Side: Yes
1 point

It is a very simple theory, and was pivotal to the course of biological sciences. It's like penecillin, the big bang theory, newton's laws, e=mc/\2- it's one of those things that has to be taught. Removing it from the curriculum because some kids are too dumb to understand it is like removing algebra from maths, or literature from english.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

And then there's other people who are experts on evolutionary theory and former evolutionist who realize that if evolutionary theory's unfalsifiable presupposition is wrong. . . .

But, yes, I know, you're too smart to ever consider that possibility, aren't you?

P.S. I’m still looking for that passage in the Constitution that says that whatever the majority of scientists says is true, even if it’s only based on an unfalsifiable metaphysical presupposition and an opposing view is well within the range of evidence, can be imposed on a free people by the government. Haven’t found it yet. All you collectivist thugs of the religion of Darwinism seem to know where it’s at. How about pointing that out to us? In the meantime, my reading of the First Amendment tells me that something’s really out of whack around here. Apparently, some have taken it upon themselves to disregard the First Amendment and just shove their beliefs down everybody’s throat as they please.

Oh, wait, I remember now. My bad. This new principle of “we’re-scientists-so-we-have-the-right-to-overthrow-the-inalienable-rights-of-others doctrine was derived from a speech made by Adams. I just can’t find the speech, but it goes something like this:

“In the future should scientists decideth that all of natural history needeth be arbitrarily premised on an unfalsifiable metaphysical naturalism and displaceth the historic mechanistic naturalism of science, we shall all bow down and kisseth their asses and be subject to accepteth whatever they insisteth be imposed in the schools. Then and only then doeseth the First Amendment meaneth nothing at all, for the scientists have spoken.”

And the sheep said, “bah, bah.”

Side: No
Elvira(3445) Disputed
2 points

Can I say word soup, here? There is no such thing as Darwinism, or Newtonianism, Gallitism, Einsteinism, Hawkingism, Curism- etcetera. He is just a scientist, who had a theory about the origin of species that makes more sense than any other. You can believe what you want, that's fine. But do not state it as fact unless you have a literal tonne of evidence. I believe in many of the Wicca philosophies, and ancient religions- but I'm not going to state for certain it is true.

Side: Yes
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

Apparently, some have taken it upon themselves to disregard the First Amendment and just shove their beliefs down everybody’s throat as they please.

The 1st ammendment, as in the right to free speech among other things?

Now how would theists or those who believe in evolution be using their free speech to simply share their opinion.

as for “In the future should scientists decideth that all of natural history needeth be arbitrarily premised on an unfalsifiable metaphysical naturalism and displaceth the historic mechanistic naturalism of science, we shall all bow down and kisseth their asses and be subject to accepteth whatever they insisteth be imposed in the schools. Then and only then doeseth the First Amendment meaneth nothing at all, for the scientists have spoken.”

All I can say is how ridiculous it makes your argument sound.

Side: Yes
1 point

I always figured you as being a mature, sophisticated person. However, based on what you've just written it sounded like you're fucking five! "People will start getting confused.."?! What?! Well not everyone agrees on Christianity, so based on what you've just said we shouldn't teach that either? In schools we learn about Christianity because it has played a very important part in our lives. Doesn't matter if you believe in the God it represents, Religion exists. However, Evolution is believed by many people, and not just as a theory. I am an evolutionist, and I can see clearly the facts indicating evolution is real. In fact, I don't see how it can't be. In any case, yes I think they both should be taught ( my personal view being that it definitely should, because Christianity is false and evolution is real!) But that's just my view, I appreciate other people have other views. No matter what though, evolution is here to stay, true or false, many people still believe it is true, and you can't just sweep that under the rug.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Right. You can't imagine how evolution could be false because you've never imagined anything beyond that which you've been conditioned to believe. But in the final analysis: your just another well-trained collectivist monkey tramping all over individual liberty and free-association.

Side: No
Jungelson(3931) Disputed
2 points

Don't assume, I have considered other options, I'm not a theist who just believes any odd thing they're told. I considered it, and decided it is the most likely thing. Not to mention the evidence, which for religion there is none. Sorry chum :)

Side: Yes
1 point

Yea we need more smart people christans+revolution=atheist+nerd=sanist

Side: Yes

Evolution has repeatable, small-scale experimental results that can be acquired over and over again.

Creationism does not.

If we're talking about both of these on the level that they are differing 'religious' ideologies, well, I apologize, but evolution simply has more evidence then creationism. In fact, creationism has no evidence at all.

Because of this, evolution belongs in basic education facilities, and creationism does not. You do not educate children on things that have no evidence suggesting they have any bearing upon reality. Math has bearing on reality. Language has bearing. Science has bearing, and so do all scientific theories and laws. But not creationism. Creationism is not a science, it's a belief, a speculation, and a philosophy. But none of those attributes of creationism belong in basic classrooms.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
1 point

Bull. Microspeciation within kinds is not a demonstration of a branching, evolutionary macrospeciation from a common ancestry. It's not even close. The former is no surprise at all and certainly doesn't undermine the biblical account of natural history in any way, shape or form. The latter is a gratuitous, unfalsifiable assumption.

Side: No

well, what does necessary mean. It's human nature to want to learn. Humans know so much that if you saw a freelance scientist going about his job you'd think he was goofing off due to the silly impractical things they study.

Did you know the sun is 10 million degrees Kalvin?

What's the point of knowing that, that won't help you in any way.

Did you know scientist have discovered a way to go into negative temperature but still can't reach zero degrees Kalvin. What's the point i say again.

What's the point of learning anything, it's all for our curiosity less for necessity.

Us humans are so privileged now a days that all we really need to know is how to work a microwave and what elements we shouldn't touch, like fire or uranium.

Side: Yes

I think so. Evolution is a scientific theory and students should be able to ask plenty of questions about it.

Side: Yes
0 points

Evolution has tons of support from the available evidence (see creationtheory.org). I have Christian beliefs and have no problem with seeing evolution taught as a scientific theory, and creationism taught as a theological theory, as it should be.

Side: Yes
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Hogwash. Evolution presupposes an unfalsiable metaphysical naturalism/common ancestry. Why did you abandon the teaching that natural history is a series of creative events? Evolutionary theory's supposed "tons of support" is an illusion if its presupposition is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the evidence doesn't show anything that refutes a natural history of successive creative events in any way, shape or manner. The evidence would look the same, and that's never occurred to you.

Side: No
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

If you are going to dispute anyone that states that creationism and most relgious ideoligies taught in school habe no proof, then please provide some. Every comment of yours i read is biggoted and simple minded in the set in ways of a crusader fighting to force others to believe in something he/she hasn't provided a lick of evidence for.

I repeat, link to me, any form of evidence of anything you're spouting, please!

Side: Yes
darthtimon(41) Disputed
1 point

If evolution is hogwash then present your links and texts that prove it so. Declaring it so repeatedly without presenting evidence is exactly what is wrong with creationism.

Side: Yes