Creationism should be taught in science class
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 8,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting choice of direction.
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.