CreateDebate


Debate Info

48
79
No Yes
Debate Score:127
Arguments:65
Total Votes:163
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (25)
 
 Yes (40)

Debate Creator

Spadedude(227) pic



Should they teach evolution as correct in schools?

No

Side Score: 48
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 79
6 points

NO, They sure must teach evolution. But, as a theory that was developed. And must also emphasis on the missing loops.

Side: No
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

And must also emphasis on the missing loops.

Such as?

Side: yes
92nida(1411) Disputed
3 points

I'm talking about the missing links. There are various missing links that are filled with theories. And also the the link just before the evolution of man.

Side: No
MrObvious(45) Disputed
2 points

Micro evolution is ok. We can observe it in bacteria. Macro evolution, stellar evolution (Big Bang), NO. It's scientifically impossible and here are some reasons why. These are just a few and evolutionary scientists themselves have brought some of these up.

First of all, stellar evolution could not have happened. Why?

Gas is said to have flowed outward from the bang through the frictionless space then formed into galaxies. Inertia, an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal or greater force. Galaxies could not have formed as space is frictionless. Gas would have continued moving outward that its same speed as there would be no way to change the trajectory gasses and particles to cause them to clump together to form atoms.

Matter - By the laws of physics, the BB should have created equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, yet there are only small amounts of negative matter in the known universe.

Gasses - Gasses do not clump together, not even on earth, they actually push apart. So how in the BB and stellar evolutionary theory would they clump together to form atoms? Think about fog, fog is a gas, have you ever witnessed or heard of fog clumping together? No, it dissipates, pushes apart. This is a physical law.

Stars - Take the previous; how can stars form? They can't, the gas would have to stop moving outward, change direction an then begin moving in circles. If the BB blew everything outward from the BB, inertia would not allow for this in the vacuum of space.

Nuclear mass gaps - With the BB, it only produced hydrogen and helium. How did these gasses change into the other 90 heavier elements? The evolutionary theory is that early stars that that defied the laws of physics, repeatedly exploded to create them. This is a problem because the nuclear gaps at 5 and 8 make it impossible for helium and hydrogen to change into any other element. Neither hydrogen nor helium have ever jumped the gap at mass 5. This is because neither protons or neutrons can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Neither an atomic bomb nor a supernova has ever caused this jump. Look at a periodic table and observe the atomic masses; hydrogen (1.008), deuterum (a form of hydrogen) 2.016, then helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811) etc, etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

These are just a few SCIENTIFIC reasons why the Big Bang could not account for the universe.

So teach was is proven fact and observable, not what is science fiction.

Side: No
blackbird86(30) Disputed
1 point

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" ). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;

Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;

Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;

Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

Side: Yes
-2 points

I don't think they should it's ok in schools the way it is.

Side: No
2 points

sry accidentally posted another argument ignore this please, I don't know how to delete it X(

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Side: No

I don't know wether im supporting you or disputing you, either way Im going to correct you lol. you don't know much about whats going on in are school huh, the majority of the country ALREADY teaches it as correct, almost no school doesn't. so when you say you think its ok the way it is, and then saying you don't think they should well you're contradicting yourself.

Side: yes
1 point

It should be but, only as a theory.

Just because a skeleton of what seems a humanoid is found. Doesn't mean it comes with a label of where it came from and how it lived. Man can only theorize on evolution.

Side: No
cognismantis(21) Disputed
1 point

the funny thing is that a theory, by definition, is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by a large scientific community. you couldn't call something like, for example, creationism as a theory; since it has little evidence and has not gone through the acceptance of the appropiate scientific communities.

Side: Yes
1 point

No evolution should not be presented as fact in any circumstance. There are so many problems within the theory of evolution to even begin to present it as fact. If you look through the available evidence provided by scientists you can see that the plan of evolution is not possible. Proof of this comes very simply from the fact that as time progress the spiral galaxies begin to collapse in upon themselves. Looking at the current rate of collapse the galaxies would collapse upon itself within a matter of 1.3 million years and this alone disproves the time scope of evolution.

Side: No
blackbird86(30) Disputed
1 point

Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years.

The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.

The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics.

Side: Yes
1 point

I am adding the argument for "No" not because I think evolution is wrong, but for the reason of saying that evolution is "correct". The term, "correct," implies absolution, and can be offensive to many who are seeking spiritual enlightenment. Evolution should be taught as a description of how life works, and not as a description as to how life began. I do not entertain any subjects that feel they should discredit religion.

Side: No
1 point

They should teach both positions. That way students can decide for themselves what they believe.

Side: No
imrigone(761) Disputed
2 points

So kids- people's brains haven't fully developed, who are frequently more emotional than logical, who don't have much experience, who haven't finished their education yet- these are the people who should determine the curriculum. Go all the way with that and nobody would be learning anything except sex ed...

Besides, kids are still free to make their choice. A significant portion of Americans are creationists, and a significant portion of Americans were taught about evolution in public school. Obviously it didn't effect them too much.

And I doubt there are any kids, no matter how they were brought up, who are not aware that some portion of the population believes God designed and created us. And the school isn't stopping them from going to church or Sunday School to get the other side of the story.

In a science class, kids are to be taught the most accurate and current theories and facts known to science. Evolution fits into that category. Creationism has persistently failed to be scientific.

Side: Yes
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

Children have the right to decide what to believe. Everyone has that right. Freedom of religion is a right for everyone.

Side: No
1 point

No, it's just fine the way that it is being teached right now.

Side: No

Evolution should be taught as a theory only. Students should feel free to ask plenty of questions about it.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You don't even know what a theory is.

Side: Yes
8 points

So many creationists misunderstand what proof is. Proof is defined as "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." I'm compelled by the evidence of evolution to say that it is true, and so should the rest of the world. Just watch any Great Ape species interact among a group open-minded, and I can assure you that you will observe striking similarities between them and us that evolution must be true. Meaning we must share a common ancestor with them.

Also, some animals are evolving right before our very eyes. For example, the rate of elephants being born without tusks has jumped from 2% to 38%. This is caused by the poaching of Elephants for their tusks to the point of species endangerment. http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

Trying to discredit any theory as "not known for sure" is wrong for more than the reasons I mentioned above! You (assuming you are logical) would most certainly not say Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong without some legitimate position to oppose it. Creationists who oppose evolution cannot give any reason for doing so other than their argument that it clashes with their belief system. Well, this is the 21st century. It is time to throw away primitive beliefs and move on. The Universe is a vast place.

Side: yes
Spadedude(227) Disputed
1 point

You can't just go round throwing immature insults in people's faces. really gives a good impression of people who believe in this theory right?! You are the one's who can't accept the concept of God. there is proof of him everywhere.

"Also, some animals are evolving right before our very eyes. For example, the rate of elephants being born without tusks has jumped from 2% to 38%. This is caused by the poaching of Elephants for their tusks to the point of species endangerment. " This is called ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. God has a brain. he created his earth so that as we mucked it up, we didn't make all animals extinct.

Besides, Evolution hasn't actually been proved as correct, so they shouldn't teach it as correct.

Also, that is discrimination to those who believe in God. People should be allowed to choose what they believe not have it forced upon them by their school.

Side: No
Conro(767) Disputed
4 points

"People should be allowed to choose what they believe not have it forced upon them by their school."

You are so right! Next class I have, I vow that I will not learn anything from anyone that I believe is wrong, although factually I may be incorrect. 2 + 2 = 5 I say, and blast all those confounded mathematicians saying otherwise!

Side: yes
2 points

"You are the one's who can't accept the concept of God. there is proof of him everywhere."

You cannot accept the fact that he does not believe in the concept of your God or a God in general therefore you are being just as immature. If you think that irrefutable proof of the existence of said God exists then that is great for you and I admire such faith, though I foresee that fervor only attracting trolls.

"This is called ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. God has a brain. he created his earth so that

as we mucked it up, we didn't make all animals extinct."

While I agree that this is adaption and not evolution in a sense adaption is a form of evolution. Just as roses grew thorns the elephants are losing their tusks it is a form of evolution for protection thus also adaption.

"Besides, Evolution hasn't actually been proved as correct, so they shouldn't teach it as correct."

The general census is that no it has not technically been proven though by the Scientific Community it is generally accepted as correct. Some nonbelievers and Christians alike believe in evolution some do not, at this time its correctness is a matter of opinion as neither side is irrefutable. "The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence." - Ebon Musings: Has Evolution Been Proven?

Sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061101112422AAnVT4p

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/proven.html

Side: Correct until proven incorrect
MrObvious(45) Disputed
0 points

That is micro evolution. The elephant isn't changing into another animal. In fact, species cannot "mutate" into other species, there is a genetic barrier that cannot be bridged. R.A. Fisher, whose discoveries laid the foundation for modern genetics discovered this.

By your logic with the tusks, Jewish men should not have foreskin, yet they do. Jews have been circumcising for over 4000 years.

Your example of the elephants is called "Lamarckism", he is the biologist who put forth the idea of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics". This theory was disproved by August Weismann who cut off the tails of 901 mice for 19 successive generations. The last generation as did every other one, still had full length tails.

You would be amazed as to how many evolutionary theories have been found false but yet are still being taught.

Side: No
Daljit87(64) Disputed
4 points

I'm sorry but you're so very, very wrong.

To start with, if you're going to make wild claims like 'there is a genetic barrier that cannot be bridged' and this idea was supported by R.A. Fisher (a well-known proponent of evolution) you should, in the very least, cite a reliable source.

Secondly, you make a massively contradictory statement where you claim that the elephant case is an example of 'Lamarckism', but then go on to say that 'Lamarckism' is false? Both cannot be true, if 'Lamarckism' is false (which it is), then there must be another explanation for this phenomenon.

The elephant example is quite clearly natural selection. Male elephants BORN without tusks (which would normally put them at a biological disadvantage) are now more likely to pass on their genes as the males with tusks are being killed by poachers. In turn this produces more tusk less males (who will also be more likely to escape poachers and pass on their genes). It is not a case where animals who have had their tusks removed are passing on their genes and creating tusk less offspring (they have been killed by poachers after all).

Side: yes
4 points

Evolution should be taught as correct until something with greater evidence is brought up. No religion has any more evidence than any other, and a holy book can not be self evident. So if we were going to teach Christian creationism we may as well teach all other religions ideas. So we must not waste tax payer money on an extended school curriculum and just teach whatever is most likely, witch happens to be evolution.

Supporting Evidence: secularist party (secularistparty.wordpress.com)
Side: yes
3 points

Absolutely evolution should be taught fully in school. It annoys me how little Science they teach in schools, especially in the younger grades, unless you choose to go to into Science at college.

And I don't understand why anyone has to think it's creation or evolution, not both. Yes there are some disagreements, but why couldn't God have put dinosaurs here first? And had the plan to have humans come from monkeys?

I personally don't, but I don't rule it out completely either.

As long as teachers aren't saying your Religion is wrong or just not real, I don't see the problem with teaching the actual facts that we've discovered.

Side: yes
2 points

It is proven and it's demonstrable.

Simply because someone disagrees and has a different opinion doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach it as correct. That's like saying if a large group of people didn't believe 2 + 2 = 4, and get very upset when you say it is correct; that we should not teach it as correct because of the large [sensitive] differing opinion.

Side: yes
2 points

I suppose Beauty Queens are renowned for their insightful opinions on world matters.

Side: yes
-1 points

Damn, all those woman are hot, this is obvious, they are competing in Miss USA 2011, yet some are dumber than a box of rocks.

It is important for them to know that evolution is a byproduct of their beauty. It is absurd to suggest that God picks and chooses who he wants to be beautiful or ugly.

Side: yes

Do you suppose that, when it comes to the human race, stupid people are jogging ;)

Side: yes

He also picks and chooses who gets to eat, live a childhood, etc.

Side: yes
-1 points

Maybe it's more like a Dungeon & Dragons game where your looks are based on the roll of the dice ;)

Side: yes
1 point

of course evolution should be taught! sorry to break your comfort zones here, but science is based on pure facts of gathered evidence. and it proves that evolution is how the human race came to be. it's not a religion, its an educational subject.

Side: yes
AntiUncleC(12) Disputed
0 points

...? you have said what, not why. this is NOT a valid argument. God is a science. theology is a science. learn to accept the concept of God.

Side: No
nspadmin(6) Disputed
3 points

The idea of god cannot be assessed by the scientific method and therefore is not a science.

Side: yes
1 point

Evolution is the best scientific explanation that we have for long and short term change in a population of organisms. It describes a physical process that explains how species change over time.

It should be taught in science because it is a theory based on empirical evidence which can be tested and justified - It is also accepted in the wider scientific community.

It may not be a complete explanation, but it's a heck of a lot better than a non-explanation such as "god did it". Such "explanations" do not explain; they provide no mechanism, no process that explains the diversity of species that we have today.

Side: yes
1 point

The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.

A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution -- and teaching it as science -- and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief.

Side: Yes
1 point

yes, evolution is true as an observed fact about nature and the theory to describe the fact is the best approximation of current understanding about how this process occurs. As far as I know, there are no gaps or holes in the theory, I am well versed and intermediately knowledgeable about this subject from learning about it in an academic setting. It is also a hobby of mine. It is also the best understanding of how, which is the fundamental nature of science - to answer how. All other options do not focus on how, they focus on the idea of who caused life and who designed it - these ideas are thus not science, they are opinion (ie not related to or based on emperical data). Call me crazy but i think they should teach science in science class

Side: Yes
1 point

Evolution is not just a theory; it is a fact and a theory. This is just like gravity. The theory of evolution explains how it works. It does not mean that it has not been proven. Evolution has been shown with fossil records and even goes on every day on a minute scale.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, evolution is no different from any scientific theory. Just because it contradicts some religious theory doesn't make it exempt from being taught. Schools should help children make their own decisions on their beliefs. If you don't teach about evolution then you can't teach creationism either.

Side: Yes

Yes, they should and they should explain why it is correct. As to teaching creationism in schools, only if the lesson is called "religion". They do that in my school.

Side: Yes
1 point

They should teach both theories in a school .

Side: Yes