Debate Info

Yes, Along With Evolution No, Just Evolution
Debate Score:8
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes, Along With Evolution (2)
 No, Just Evolution (4)

Debate Creator

HattieKelsey(18) pic

Should Creationism Be Taught in Schools?

Should Creationism be taught in Schools along with Evolution? Or Should just the un proven theory of Evolution be just the basis of what is taught as "correct" in the public schooling systems?

Yes, Along With Evolution

Side Score: 2

No, Just Evolution

Side Score: 6

For years there have been controversy, debate, and argument about whether creation and other theories of  the origin of life along with evolution should be taught in the public school systems, but really, whats the big deal? Why shouldn’t we?  In fact, in the supreme court case of  Edwards v. Aguillard Justice Scalia stated that "Creation science is educationally valueable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life. Students exposed to creation science have a better understanding of evolution." Why are evolutionists so afraid to have students able to have both sides of the argument? Job 39:22 "He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing; he does not shy away from the sword." We should not be scared about leaving both sides of the argument for students to choose.  Public schools should be allowed to teach creationism along with evolution because there is scientific evidence proving creationism, the majority of people want both alternative theories taught, and the right to teach creationism is protected under the Constitution of the United States.

There is scientific evidence proving creationism. First of all, the moon is receding from the earth. Only one million years ago the moon the would’ve been close enough to cause tides or tidal friction between itself and Earth that would have been so strong that it would have drown everyone on earth two times a day. The rate of recessions was measured at four centimeters per year in  1981 , thus we can conclude that it would not be possible for the Earth to be “millions of years old.”

The earth is slowing down. You have to add .001of a second each day to the earth’s rotation time. Using that rate of speed, we know that only one million years ago the earth would’ve been rotating so fast that (like Jupiter) there would have been constant tornadoes on the suface of the earth. Therefore, there is no possible way there could’ve been life even one million years ago let alone billions of years ago.

The sun is shrinking. The sun is shrinking five feet per hour; only 20 mil. years ago the sun would’ve been so large it would have been too hot for any life form; and only 40 million years ago it would have been touching the Earth’s surface.

          Earths magnetic field would be too strong.The Earth's magnetic field is deteriorating at the alarming rate of five percent within the span of every 100 years. 1,420 years ago the Earth's magnetic field would be twice as strong as what it is today. 2900 years ago it would of been three times as strong.100,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as what the magnetic field is today; because it would be so strong life would not have been possible do to heat and pressure. As we have just learned in science class that heat and pressure are the causing for the forming of metamorphic rocks; in other words the heat and pressure would compact you like a rock.

The majority of people want both alternative theories taught, In the 2010 Gallup poll most  believed in creationism. Recently statistics showed that 40% of all students taking the Gallup poll believed in creationism, 38% believed in theistic evolution ( the theory in which the earth was created through evolution that was guided by God’s hand) Only 16% of students across the United States claimed to believe in Darwinism( evolution).

The 2002 National Survey conducted by Channel One News( A cable Station that broad casts directly to Schools throughout the U.S.) stated the controversy of creationism should also be taught. In this National survey we found that 12,000 Students throughout the U.S. Spoke up/against when asked "which should be taught in our public schooling systems, -evolution, creationism  ,or both?"  31% were for creationism, 17% supported only evolution and 52% of students supported the teaching of both.

A CBS news report had given a survey to America over the debate of creationism in schools and the majority of America was leaning towards creationism. CBS’s survey showed about two thirds of all Americans want creationism taught in some form. This said means that about one third or around 37% of Americans want evolution science. Within America 55% of citizens believe God created humans in present form( creationism). 27% of Americans believe humans evolved, but god guided the process( intelligent design) . Only 13% believe that humans evolved without some sort of god( this is strictly evolution).

The right to teach creationism is protected under the Constitution of the United States.

 This is because the  Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Schools should be free to discuss creationism as long as it is clear that the school is not enforcing any single belief . A teacher is allowed to teach both creation and evolution as teaching the origins of life as long as both display scientific evidence.  If we are allowed to teach religious stands in social studies then shouldn’t we be allowed to creation in science classes?  Evolutionist argue that creationism is a religion opinion instead of a scientific one,when in fact  evolutionary theory is also a religion because it provides a view of the world that must be accepted on faith (it promotes the religion of atheism).

There are numerous  disprovings of "evolution evidence" Radioactive dating has aged the earth to billions of years old. Rocks in Russia were radioactivity dated over 100 million to 10 billion years old when it is well known that these rocks were formed by volcanoes less than 200 years ago

            Vestigial organs have been left over in our body from our evolved “ancestors” the monkeys. Evolutionist argue that organs such as the earlobe, appendix, tailbone, tonsils, pineal gland, and the plica semilunaris. Medical doctors agree that these organs and all others have medical importance/usage. For instance, the earlobes keep the ears warm during cold weather by providing the ears with a good blood supply, the appendix contains a rich blood supply that provides some defense against cancer, the tailbone is not where a monkey tail used to be but instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination, tonsils help keep foreign particles from your child’s throat, the pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs, and the plica semilunaris helps keep the eye clean of foreign particles.

          There have been ape-men found to prove the evolving from apes. Supposed "ape-man" such as Lucy discovered in the 1970s have been proven not to be actual "ape-man"; only 40% of the skeleton was found, D.C. Johanson claimed that Lucy walked upright because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint"- National Geographic, December 1976 however, the knee joint was badly crushed so Johanson's theory was mere speculation

         Comparative anatomy shows that animals and humans have a common ancestor. Evolutionist believe the comparative anatomy has proven that humans and animals have a common ancestor but they limit their search from just that.  but why stop there? if we look further into context we will find that clouds are 100% water, jellyfish are 98%, watermelon are 97%  does this mean to prove they all evolved from a common ancestor? Humans have 46 chromosomes which makes us ancestors with bat (44) and tobacco (48)? With a few million years of gradual evolution we might be able to catch up with carp (100) or maybe even fern (480).

Public schools should be allowed to teach creationism along with evolution because there is scientific evidence proving creationism, the majority of people want both alternative theories taught, and the right to teach creationism is protected under the Constitution of the United States. In order to uphold scientific evidence, preserve democracy, and promote our rights and freedoms as citizens of the United States; we the people demand that creationism and other forms of the origin of life be taught along with evolution within our public schooling systems.

Side: Yes, Along With Evolution

Both sides of the spectrum should be taught and plenty of questions encouraged.

Side: Yes, Along With Evolution
2 points

Evolution isn't really an "unproven theory." To be honest, it's as much a theory as the "theory of gravity," which the world has no problem acknowledging as practically absolute.

Scientifically, it's not proper to take anything as an absolute. We continue to call things like evolution or gravity "theories", but they're just about universally accepted in science; they're the most up-to-date, accurate explanations of how things work in nature. We don't perform experiments with the qualifier of: "Well, assuming the THEORY of evolution is true, this is what we expect to find." We take it as a given, because we all know that evolution is fundamentally true.

I doubt we've discovered anything that violates our theories of gravity with no explanation (i.e. if something appears to disobey gravity, there's other forces that we're forgetting to take into account, like magnetism). Likewise, we haven't really found anything that defies evolution. For example, we've never introduced an antibiotic into a culture of bacteria and found that all the antibiotic-resistant bacteria died (or if by chance we did, there was another selection factor not taken into account).

Still, let's not start by assuming evolution is universally accepted.

Consider the logic behind evolution: if you place a whole variety of organisms in a stressful environment, only the most suited to that environment will survive. If you take a bunch of bacteria and put them in a volcano, only the ones able to tolerate extreme heat will survive (there's always genetic diversity in bacteria. Those able to tolerate heat will have a slightly different genetic code than the others). They'll reproduce, and so the next generation will genetically be able to tolerate heat better. We absolutely know that DNA is the way we inherit our parents' characteristics, and that DNA varies between different members of a species. Those best suited to an environment pass on their DNA to their children. Once you consider this, is there really any way to refute evolution? Evolution isn't a complex theory at all. To be honest, I'm amazed that people think there's anything to learn about evolution; it's intuitive.

So yeah, evolution should be taught in schools. If one holds that Creationism explains the true origin of life, well, that's honestly wrong. It doesn't. But if you are a religious person, and better because of it, there's no reason you can't follow the Bible AND evolution. Bible stories aren't meant to be taken literally.

Consider the history of astronomy; Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brahe and Copernicus all tried to establish that we live in a heliocentric galaxy. They were trying to prove that the Earth moved with other planets around the Sun (not the other way around, as was believed in those times). We know today that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that Earth moves. The Sun is (relatively) still.

The Roman Catholic Church did not want to acknowledge that the Earth moved around the Sun (they insisted the Sun moved around Earth). Why? Because Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still in the Scriptures. They thought: why would Joshua command the Sun to stand still, unless it was moving around the Earth? They took the Bible too literally, and that made the Church ban heliocentrism as heresy. They were wrong. Likewise, it would be wrong to take the Creationism story literally, because that's not the actual mechanism for the creation of life.

Evolution is correct. But evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe; there's not going to be a scientific explanation for that. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that God made the Universe, WITH the laws of evolution and gravity as a given, and that he started from the Big Bang (or whatever we'll discover the beginning of time to be).

Take from your Bible stories moral values. If you can become a better person because of it, the Bible has done its work, and scientific progress will continue.


Side: No, Just Evolution
1 point

No not at all not even evoultion or creatism. Many people in my school believe that the earth was created by God and that people are fools if they believe evoultion even exists. We don't even need evoultion at all. We don't need evoultion on how we reproduce. We didn't evolve. We all came from out out mother's womb. We reprouce with male and female.

Side: No, Just Evolution
1 point

My actual answer would be: Yes, in religion, along with another range of creation beliefs. It makes no sense to promote one creation story above others, and certainly not in a secular science class.

Side: No, Just Evolution
1 point

The schools would be better off if they took a Secular approach and didn't teach either "Intelligent Design" or "Evolution".

Religion should never be in the school system, nor does questionable theories as well. In my school...we went with just good old "Facts".

Side: No, Just Evolution