Instigator / Pro

Creationism should be taught in science class

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
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
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. 

Not published yet
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
No votes yet