Instigator / Pro
Points: 49

Creationism should be taught in science class

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
Virtuoso
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,500
Contender / Con
Points: 15
Description
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think creationism should be taught in science class.
Definitions
1) Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
2) Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
3) Taught: give such instruction professionally.
Rules
1) No semantics
2) No k's
3) Show good conduct
Structure
1. Opening
2. Rebuttal
3. Defense
4. Close
Round 1
Published:
Thank you, RationalMadman, for accepting this debate. My argument can be summarized like this:

P1: Science history ought to be taught in science class
P2: Creationism is part of science history
C1: Therefore, creationism ought to be taught in science class

I'm sure my opponent will accept P1. It's impossible to not talk about how ideas and theories evolved without understanding the history of that time. We can't talk about the solar system without talking about geocentricism and how we once believed the Earth is at the center of the universe. We can't talk about evolution without talking about Darwin and how his ideas developed. Similarly, creationism has played a major role in science history that it would be a mistake to not teach that part of science history. 

Creation science has long played a part in our school policies starting with the Scopes Trial in 1925. The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 that prohibited schools from teaching evolution and denying Biblical Creation [1]. These legal battles continue to this day. In 2005, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover effectively ruled that intelligent design is religion and not science fact [2]. 

The National Center for Science Education notes the following: " At the end of the Middle Ages, European tradition held that all of the Earth´s inhabitants had been created by God in one place, the Garden of Eden, soon after the formation of the earth. But as the scientific revolution began to unfold some 400 years ago, naturalists started to catalog fossils according to the layers in which they were found. Soon a very unexpected and troubling pattern emerged." [3]. Indeed, this pattern they found completely demolished the belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth; however, this background knowledge is very important for students to understand science.

Both of my premises are sound and the conclusion has to follow.

Over to you, RatMan.
 
Sources
Published:
Creationism is not scientific. The problem with this debate structure is that my entire case lies in rebuttals.

I will lay out my core fundamentals that are going to win the debate for me:

Creationism, if it should be taught, should be taught in religious studies or even history.

It doesn't fall under science in any shape or form, especially not when defined as 'opposed to evolution'.
Round 2
Published:
Thank you, RationalMadman, for your reply.

I agree with my opponent that Creationism is unscientific, but neither is the geocentric model or spontaneous generation, but they are taught in science class because it is part of science history. Students need to learn the history of the theories and how science came about our current understanding. I look forward to your rebuttals.  
Published:
I have no idea where they are taught. Do you mean bringing up as a passing sentence or paragraph in a textbook that isn't even tested ever in exams? That's a very abusive definition of 'taught in science class' and I challenge you on semantics. You define Creationism not just as a passing comment of an idea that things were created by a deity but instead your debate description states that it is:

 the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
So, this absolutely would need to be taught as an intense syllabus section that runs as a genuine opposition to evolution. They do not teach the geocentric model as a genuine opposition concept to the heliocentric one, they teach it as 'people used to think this but you are taught this idea that's considered correct'. Similar thing with evolution. There is limited time, school isn't meant to explore the entire history of every subject, nor every religious interpretation of it. School is there to equip the generation for jobs in the future.
Round 3
Published:
Thank you for your reply. I will now make my concluding statements.

My argument rests on two premises and a conclusion:

P1: Science history ought to be taught in science class
P2: Creationism is part of science history
C1: Therefore, creationism ought to be taught in science class

My opponent drops both premises and thus the conclusion follows. My opponent gripes that this is a semantic debate and abusive, though this clearly isn't the case. There are at least several ways con could have went about challenging either premise. My opponent grips that he has "no idea where they are taught," yet had he read my opening statements, he would have known:

We can't talk about the solar system without talking about geocentricism and how we once believed the Earth is at the center of the universe. We can't talk about evolution without talking about Darwin and how his ideas developed. Similarly, creationism has played a major role in science history that it would be a mistake to not teach that part of science history. 
Students deserve to know the full history of science and deserve to know how we came to our current understanding of science and how our current understanding uprooted old ideas. Creationism is one of these ideas that are foundational to science history.

Please vote pro. 

Forfeited
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @RationalMadman
Virtuoso caught madman in a suprise twist.
I think madman had a chance if he dug in on the difference between teaching and mentioning.
Teaching creation: many people believe that the world was made by a creator. Here are the proofs for it. Here are the arguments in favor. Here are famous thinkers who held or helped form this belief. Etc.
Mentioning: at one point people believed x, but then reason provided better answers. the end. Now lets turn to the actual lesson: the big bang in actual detail.
#3
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Interesting choice of direction.
#2
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Creationism as a fundamental precursor to our observable universe in any guise should not be regarded as science, as there is no global standard for creationism.
#1
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both of PRO's premises were fairly engagable- science is and ought to be taught separately from any specific field of scientific study, creationism is part of history but not the history of science particularly. CON outlines a few worthwhile retorts but never backs the arguments with reasoning sources.
Sources to PRO because CON really needed to bring in some sources and offered none.
Conduct for forfeit.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Fantastic use of a syllogism!
"P1: Science history ought to be taught in science class
P2: Creationism is part of science history
C1: Therefore, creationism ought to be taught in science class"
But yes, that was the core of pro's case, which con choose to not really challenge. And as per the resolution, it should be taught in science class, not /should be taught as science./ If it should be more fully taught elsewhere, does not actually address its role in science class. Claiming "It doesn't fall under science in any shape or form," does not work when such was pre-refuted with "creationism has played a major role in science history" and the brief history of creation.
Sources:
This debate was pretty sources light, but con accidentally leveraged the weight of one of them (National Center for Science Education) directly against his own counter case by asserting it was wholly wrong, but not in any way justifying that assertion.
Conduct:
Forfeiture.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Creationism was refuted in a manner that was not sufficent to the argument made by CON in this. The arguments go uncontested in the case where there is evidence. A misinterpretation gets refuted by the PRO and extended by PRO to point out fallacies, and with R3 closing the deal, PRO wins
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro,
Some people don't believe in God.
You allocated 8500 character for this debate, yet used less than half of that. You went under the assumption that creationism can be explained by Science/is true. If you had defined this debate a little better, or provided a little more evidence to why creationism can be explained by Science, then that would be a lot better.
Your second round text was also quite deflated in word count. I felt like you should of kept your momentum going.
Con,
I liked your first round's text. Perhaps you could of spent some more time on that. There is a 8500 character limit after all...
You did however forfeit your last round...
sigmaphil covers the rest.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro asserted that Science history ought to be taught in science class, and because Creationism is science history, Creationism ought to be taught in science class. The rebuttal from Con fell flat to me. He stated that Creationism isn't scientific, therefore it ought to be taught in another class like history or religious studies. Pro rebuts this well by pointing out that the geocentric model isn't scientific, but it still is a part of science's history, which is why it's taught in science class. Con then says that we merely address false ideas briefly, not teach them.
Frankly, Con failed to address any of Pro's arguments and analogies. Con's response fell flat as well, the extent to which something is discussed is largely irrelevant.
Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited.
Also, extra credit to Pro, I came into this debate agreeing with Con and now I must say I side with Pro.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I humbly submit my vote.
Better Arguments:
-Pro laid down the framework by arguing that Creationism should be taught in science classes because it is part of Science history (An intriguing concept I must admit.). Con rebutted by saying that Creationism isn't science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Con, however, did not rebut the fact that Creationism was indeed taught in science classes in the past, whether it was based on scientific fact or not.
-Vote goes to Pro.
Better Sources:
-Pro supported their position with sources. Con did not.
-Vote goes to Pro.
Better Spelling and Grammar:
-Tie
Better Conduct:
-Con FF last round.
-Vote goes to Pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument:
Pro put forth a syllogistic argument that was valid (Children ought to be taught the history of scientific theories, and that creationism is part of the scientific history of how the theory of evolution formed). Though not bulletproof by any standards, this argument is enough to stand on its own. Con's sole argument is that Creationism is unscientific (which Pro acknowledged). This does not address, let alone refute, either of the premises that Pro established. Thus, arguments go to pro.
Conduct:
Con forfeited the final round. Thus, conduct goes to Pro.