Instigator / Pro
Novice's avatar
15
Novice
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3381

Creationism should be taught in schools.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Tags
Education
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Benjamin's avatar
15
Benjamin
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description

Creationism refers to 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.

Kritiks are banned.

Round 1
Novice's avatar
Novice
Pro
#1
resolved: creationism should be taught in schools.
  • Creationism "refers to 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" -Oxford Languages
  • Taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill). 

overview
  • I believe creationism should be taught in schools, and in many ways it already is. I am willing to defend many of these cases. 
  • It is apparent that the biggest critique of creationism is that it is unscientific; or that it is religious or fictional in nature, and thus not aligned with reality as we perceive it. 
    • I won't be discussing whether creationism is true, false, justified, or not because I don't believe that is the most productive aspect of the debate. 
      • For all purposes, it is an essential part of history, religion, culture, and science, and by that metric, it has a place in any education system. 

o1. history 
  • Creationism should be taught in history because it is an important aspect of history. In history, we study change over time in every aspect of human society. Theories, overviews, and arguments are all significant parts of history and should all be taught. 
    • Creationism is a strong aspect of human society in theory, culture, and religion. 
    • Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases such as Segraves v. the State of California, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, and Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al. 
      • This pertains to United States history and the study of various cases, the arguments behind them, and their significance. 
      • This relates to European history, the rise of naturalist theories, and the challenges to creationism that came with thinkers such as English biologist Charles Robert Darwin.

  • Even if you believed creationism is false, (I won't claim either way) and therefore should not be taught, that still would not be a good argument. 
    • We are taught many theories such as Karl Marx's labor theory of value in economics which is demonstrably false. 
      • Because of this, it doesn't appear as if the falsehood or perceived falsehood of theories is what determines whether they are taught or not. 

o2. science 
  • According to a Boston university production called "the brink, "History provides strong evidence of how the environment around scientists was equally important in shaping their lives and discoveries."
  • Creationism has a significant impact on the history and evolution of scientific thought. We have discussed that creationism should be taught in history, but we can also connect this to scientific thought. 
  • One of the most important aspects of science is science is its history. 
    • In astronomy and astrology, in studies of the solar system, students typically learn of the previous theories of the universe and the development that have come with them. 
    • Before the heliocentric model which placed the sun in the center of the solar system, was the geocentric model which placed the earth in the center. 
      • And I say if the geocentric theory is taught in schools as a part of scientific history then creationism which is also a significant part of our history in the interaction of scientific theories should be taught as well.

  • Students are also taught the theory of spontaneous generation, defined by oxford languages as "the supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter, as inferred from the apparent appearance of life in some supposedly sterile environments."
    • As far as science instruction goes, we are many taught theories that have contributed to or preceded the development of what is more accepted and conventional. 
      • So far we have discussed the importance of the history of science because science itself studies and organizes knowledge. And therefore I say, creationism ought to be a part of that. 

o3. religious studies
  • "Religious studies, also known as the study of religion, is an academic field devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions" (Wikipedia). 
    • I think there are very convincing arguments that creationism should be taught in religious studies. For one, it is both a core and fundamental teaching of many religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Baháʼí Faith, and Mandaeism. 
    • One studying religious studies ought to be educated on the practices, beliefs, behaviors, and institutions, and creationism is a large part of those customs and beliefs. 
      • And I say, therefore, creationism is something that must be taught in schools, in religious studies, courses which are offered by almost every major university.

o4. philosophy
  • One of the most discussed phenomenons in philosophy is the origin of the Universe. There are many aspects of philosophy that deal with this such as the philosophy of cosmology. 
  • "Cosmology deals with the physical situation that is the context in the large for human existence: the universe has such a nature that our life is possible. This means that although it is a physical science, it is of particular importance in terms of its implications for human life" (Plato Stanford). 
    • Creationism is also a theory and aspect of philosophy and in that regard, it should be taught in philosophy classes, as well as other philosophical theories and arguments are.
      • Given this example, philosophy is a broad and complex subject and hopefully, we can get into more of an expansion in my later rounds. 
        • Ultimately creationism is an important part of philosophy and I hope my opening case will allow you to accept this. 

conclusion
  • Although I am arguing affirmative in this debate, I am also the one defending the status quo, because creationism is taught in schools in all of these areas. The argument can be seen as, rather, this should be the case, and there are many needs for creationism in various instructions. CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all. 

  • please vote PRO and on to CON. 

sources


Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#2
RESOLUTION: Creationism should be taught in schools.
POSITION: CON

BOP:
Unless the description assigns a burden of proof to CON or both debaters, PRO bears the burden of proof. This rule applies in this case. BoP is on PRO.


DEFINITIONS:
  • School: An institute for educating children
  • Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions  
-Oxford Languages



FRAMEWORK
PRO opens his case by claiming that creationism is already taught in schools and that he is merely defending the status quo. That is actually a significant movement of the goalpost. The word "school" in our context is obviously refering to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about. The resolution and the description lacks the words "college" and "university" and is generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term. PRO also interprets the phrase "teach creationism" to mean simply mentioning it as a part of a few specific subjects. In other words he seems to believe that the schools are already "teaching" alchemy, flat earth theory and slavery. However, the truth is that teaching is something different entirely from teaching about. Teaching math is done with the intention of creating mathematicians, and teaching language is meant to create good writers of the children. Science is taught in schools so that the children can learn the truth about different aspects of our universe. Teachers teach math, but they teach about religion, they aren't working to create religious people. The way PRO uses the word "teach" is once again completely foreign to the societal debate of which ours is but a tiny fraction. Creationists want creationism to be taught as school, or in other words, they want schools to present creationism as a valid alternative to the scientific consensus.

PRO simply cannot re-define an already well known debate, especially now when it is not mentioned in the description. 



WHAT IS CREATIONISM?
PRO seems to defend a really broad definition of creationism, but then proceeds to focus specifically on the abrahamic version and its connection to history, science, philosophy and society. Especially comparing it to obsolete scientific theories and pointing out its influence on scientific thought is a giveaway that he is not talking about some general idea of religious creation myths. His mention of specific court cases and the question of creationism being true or false points in the same direction. His very definition of creationism admits that it is a rejection of scientific theories in favor of divine action.

Creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory, which explains the diversity of life without recourse to the doctrine of God or any other divine power. It may also reject the big-bang model of the emergence of the universe. Mainstream scientists generally reject creationism. Today most creationists in the United States favour the elimination of evolution from the public school curriculum or at least the teaching of creationism alongside evolution as an equally legitimate scientific theory. [Britannica]

Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true. It is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not. Natural religion – approaching God through reason and argument – has long had an honored place for both Catholics and Protestants... dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Thanks to a number of factors, Creationism started to grow dramatically in the early part of the twentieth century. There were the first systematic attempts to work out a position that would take account of modern science as well as just a literal reading of Genesis. There was the spread of public education, and more children being exposed to evolutionary ideas, bringing on a Creationist reaction. After the Scopes Trial, general agreement is that the Creationism movement had peaked and declined quite dramatically and quickly. Yet, it (and related anti-evolution activity) did have its lasting effects. [plato.stanford]
This is not merely the ancient belief in some supernatural world above our own to which we owe our existence. This is a modern movement -- the recent mass rejection of large chunks of natural science by religious fundamentalists. Meanwhile, even the pope has affirmed the validity of the theory of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching [ibid], and thus confirmed for the majority of Christian worldwide the falsehood of creationism as PRO defines it (as contradicting evolution). For this reason alone, creationism stands out as a weird outlier today.



SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?
No. I will flesh out an argument in R2 due to time constaints. For now, PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious modell of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one. I don't think my opponent adequately supports this position. I hope he makes a case relevant to the real debate rather than try to defend himself moving the goalpost.
Round 2
Novice's avatar
Novice
Pro
#3
Framework 
  • Definition of school (disputed): any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline.
  • Definition of should: agreed. 
  • Definition of creationism is binding (stated in the full description) so it cannot be contested. 
  • Definition of taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill). 

Benjamin sats "The word "school" in our context is obviously refering to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about"
  • Actually, not at all. This sort of logic just blatantly excludes schools that generally educate people who are adults, such as community colleges, trade schools, and universities. This is not how anyone defines the school. A school is simply an institution for the learning and education of anyone, not specifically children. 

"The resolution and the description lacks the words "college" and "university" and is generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term."
    • Is a Univerity suddenly not a school? 
    • Is a College not a school now? 
      • The way con asserts that the use of the word "school" here is "unconventional" is a baseless assertion. Almost every reputable online dictionary or educational body will define school in the way I have. There is no justification for excluding a large proportion of schools for no apparent reason.

  • Merriam Webster: "b: COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY"
  • Collins Dictionary: "A university, college, or university department specializing in a particular type of subject can be referred to as a school."
  • California Department of Education: The term "school" is used to refer to all educational institutions that have the following characteristics:
      • Have one or more teachers to give instruction
      • Have an assigned administrator
      • Are based in one or more buildings
      • Contain enrolled or prospectively enrolled students
  • Vocabulay.com: 
      • 1. noun an educational institution
      • 2. noun a building where young people receive education

Rebuttals
Benjamin says that: "PRO opens his case by claiming that creationism is already taught in schools and that he is merely defending the status quo. That is actually a significant movement of the goalpost"
  • Even if I mentioned that creationism is already taught in schools, and even if I argue that I am defending the status quo, that is not moving the goalposts at all. 
  • According to Wikipedia: Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
      • The resolution is that Creationism should be taught in schools. I am simply pointing out that it is already.  
        • That doesn't move the goalposts at all. 

Benjamin says that "PRO seems to defend a really broad definition of creationism, but then proceeds to focus specifically on the abrahamic version and its connection to history, science, philosophy and society" 
    • There are many types of creationism, but they all encompass the idea that the "universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation." 
    • Maybe Christian Abrahamic creationism would have a historical significance in American/English history, but in religious studies, students can be educated on any aspect of creationism of any religion. 
      • There is no reason different forms of creationism can be taught in different countries' historical education. 
        • Ultimately, CON's point is a red herring. My examples generally correspond to Abrahamic religions, but that doesn't affect that creationism should be taught in schools. 


CON sort of goes on a tangent about creationism being "a movement" conducted by "religious fundamentalists" or whatnot, and all of it is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
    • It doesn't matter if you believe something is a movement or not as we are discussing the ideas; we are debating whether or not creationism should be taught in schools or not. Your point is irrelevant. 

Meanwhile, even the pope has affirmed the validity of the theory of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching [ibid], and thus confirmed for the majority of Christian worldwide the falsehood of creationism as PRO defines it (as contradicting evolution). For this reason alone, creationism stands out as a weird outlier today.
  • CON displays a severe misunderstanding of the Pope's stance on evolution. For one, the Pope accepts evolution thats true. 
  • But to say that he said creationism is false is wrong. The pope's and the catholic stance on this is that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. We can see what he really said here. 
On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."
The Pope also expressed in the same statement the view that scientific explanations such as the Big Bang and evolution in fact require God's creation:
[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.[66]


Ben finally says that "PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious model of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one"
  • For one, this is not correct. The resolution never says that creationism will replace evolution. It just says that creationism should be taught to students. 
  • Secondly, creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. As you yourself brought up, the Pope himself acknowledges evolution, but according to your own source "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church"
    • Even proponents of creationism acknowledge that both can be explained without contradiction, and have done so for 70 years. One does not preclude the other. 

A pecualir anylisis of CON's case
  • CON's case can be summarized on the following premises. 
    1. PRO has moved the goalposts 
    2. That creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution. 
    3. Creationism is a movement of religious fundamentalists who reject science etc.
  • a has been proven to be false, as asserting that the resolution pertains to the status quo does not alter the resolution itself.
  • b has been proven irrelevant because there is nothing that creationism must preclude evolution. Rather both can complement each other, and both can be taught. 
  • c has been proven to be irrelevant because just because you believe something to be a more largely sinister movement, does not mean it is understood, taught, and accepted in this way. 

  • CON largely drops the various ways in which creationism can be taught in schools in areas of world history, religious studies, philosophy, and science/science history. 
  • He argues for a semantic distinction between "taught" and "taught about," but he does not even challenge the definition, or provide a reference definition, more so how it is used. 
  • Taught means "give(n) information about or instruction in (a subject or skill)" 
      • CON says "Teaching math is done with the intention of creating mathematicians," but this is hardly the case. Out of all people taught mathematics very few actually become mathematicians at higher levels of education. Like any instruction, teaching is to equip the student with knowledge. 

      • CON goes on to say that "Science is taught in schools so that the children can learn the truth about different aspects of our universe" but this lies directly in contrast to what CON just said, about the intention to create people of the same profession? So it appears the couplet is self-refuting. 
  • All things considered, CON has not sufficiently countered any of my arguments or made any of his own. 

Back to CON for his rebuttal. 
Please vote PRO. 



Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#4
RESOLUTION: Creationism should be taught in schools.
POSITION: CON
BOP: PRO


ARGUMENTS

Creationism is not science
Recall from my citing of Britannica in R1 that there is a firm scientific consensus reject creationism in any form, especially young-earth creationism. Moreover, information found in religious doctrine or religious interpretation of science are not actual science no matter how many religious scientists support it. Science is established through the scientific method and science always requires peer-review and conclusive evidence -- this has been the practise for at least 300 years [2]. No matter the truth of creationism, the balance of scientific evidence and consensus still firmly support evolution and the big bang [3] [4] [5]. Schools should not teach creationism when the evidence clearly proves the occurence of natural processes rather than specific acts of divine intervention.



The differing narratives of creation, and their respective religions, divides us
Different parts of the world have different creation myths. The only way we can all get on the same page is if we base our education on the objective facts we can observe and the scientific community that studies it. Teaching creationism in school guarantees that all parts of humanity continues to have very different (and unscientific) pictures of the very core of our identity, our origins. Science on the other hand shows us that we all share the same history and that it is possible for us to work together to discover our shared origins, and by extension, shared identity.




FRAMEWORK REBUTALLS

Creationism
PRO defines creationism as such: "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." Affirming the natural processes by which life and the universe came to be, like evolution, and in doing so rejecting the specific acts of divine creation (as described in the bible),  automatically means you aren't a creationist according to PRO's own definition. To be a creationist you need to believe that a divine power used specific acts rather than natural processes to create life and the universe. The pope might believe evolution and a creator God is compatible, but he does reject specific acts of divine creation in favor of natural processes as described by modern science. The same applies to the majority of christians throughout history. My schoolastic sources Britannica and Standford both agree that creationism is a fairly recent invention, a mass rejection of modern science based on religion.

School
PRO rejects the first oxford definition of school in favor of the second. It reads: "any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline". However, the example given to illustrate it was "a dancing school", which makes it obvious that this definition is not valid for our debate. The category is broad enough as to even include religious schools and creationist academies. PRO claims that creationism is already being taught in schools, by which he means religious, philosophical, historical and social studies -- all for adults in higher education.  Crucially, the creationism debate has never been about these arenas, it has always been about creationism and evolution in public school. Every single court case PRO mentioned were controversies about public schools and unlawful teaching to children [PRO's source]. The legal debate about creationism in school has always been about public schools for children. PRO's claim that the debate concerns all educational institutions is a cherry picking of secondary definitions -- a semantical fallacy and a bad faith argument. If PRO wanted to have a debate with unconventional usage of the term "creationism taught in school" he should have put it in the description or resolution. 


Teaching
My opponent defines teaching in an extremely defensive way. According to him, people shouldn't be taught creationism in the classical and controversial meaning of the phrase, that the schools should embrace the faith as truth (or atleast a valid alternative to modern science). Instead, teaching creationism means telling folks the obvious truth that there exists people who believe the divine had some sort of role in this cosmic history stuff. PRO is effectively dodging the entire debate. The entire legal controversy has always been about creationism being taught as science, and not merely being discussed as a belief system from a secular perspective. 

In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.
 
The provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.
 
In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. [PRO's source]
My opponent pretends that "teaching creationism" is similar to schools in some subjects mentioning an outdated model of reality like alchemy. He even implies that any schools having older students specialize in studying any old creation myth for the sake of understanding ourselves and our history, as being "schools teaching creationism". Only in this context can he call his case a defence of the status quo. Unfortunately for his case, the teaching of creationism has already been thoroughly discussed and the legal conclusions have been that creationism should not be taught in schools. 




BURDEN OF PROOF

Moving the goalpost: changing the rules in a situation or an activity, in order to gain an advantage for themselves and to make things difficult for other people.

PRO tries to define the words of the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism" compatible with creationists losing their historic fight for the right to teach creationism in school. He twists the idea to the point where it is so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. "A truism is distinct from a tautology in that it is not true by definition.  Instead, a truism is an argument that is considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that really is not disputable.  For example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is going to argue that a genocide is good." [1] Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible if PRO gets to set the rules and define the meaning of the resolution. I am forced to invoke the CoC:

Truisms and Tautology. The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. [dart voting-policy].
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of teaching creationism at school, by cherry picking definitions and semantically redefining the meaning of the phrase to mean "telling some people somewhere something about some form of creation myth". This way of framing the resolution it becomes a truism. Additionally PRO disallowed Kritiks. He is guilty of creating a truism debate.

Either vote CON since PRO's debate is confirming a truism and is absurdly unfair, or vote based on the conventional meaning on the term "teaching creationism in school". In the latter case, consider if schools should really regress and once again convince kids that creationism is as valid as evolution, which is evidentily not true. 




Round 3
Novice's avatar
Novice
Pro
#5
Framework
  • Definition of taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill).
  • Definition of school (disputed): any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline.
See from round 3: California Department of Education: The term "school" is used to refer to all educational institutions that have the following characteristics:
  • Have one or more teachers give instruction
  • Have an assigned administrator
  • Are based in one or more buildings
  • Contain enrolled or prospectively enrolled students

  • CON continues to argue about the semantics of the word "school" saying that it excludes universities and colleges for some reason but has he said why? 
CON says "PRO rejects the first oxford definition of school in favor of the second. It reads: "any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline". However, the example given to illustrate it was "a dancing school", which makes it obvious that this definition is not valid for our debate."
  • OBJECTION, CON has made two different points that contradict one another. 
    • CON argued in round one that school does not include colleges and universities because that isn't its conventional use and the resolution doesn't mention them (presumably a university isn't a school?) but then says that for our debate this definition would include dancing schools. 
      • CON round one: "The word "school" in our context is obviously referring to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about. The resolution and the description lack the words "college" and "university" and are generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term"
    • But going by his first-round assertion, would he not also say that dancing schools are not included in the resolution?
  • These two statements cannot be true at the same time. It is special pleading to say that universities aren't schools because they aren't in the resolution, and arent how people would use school in reference to education, but then go on to say that dancing schools would be included as schools under a definition going against your own reasons for removing universities. 

  • CON drops my argument that every reputable education board and or online dictionary would define schools including universities and colleges, as well as the many examples I provide.

r1. 
CON argues that creationism is not science.
"Schools should not teach creationism when the evidence clearly proves the occurrence of natural processes rather than specific acts of divine intervention" 
  • But this argument has been refuted by CON's own Britannica source which claimed in round one that "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."
    • Creationism does not preclude evolution and the two are not mutually exclusive. Quite frankly your argument is irrelevant.
      • Evolution proves the development of organisms, creationism seeks to theorize the origins of the universe itself. Your argument is irrelevant.
  • CON argues a point here that his own sources disagree with that creationism precludes evolution and one or the other must be true, but as CON fell into after his round one case, even the Pope doesn't believe this. 
    • "On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" 

  • Science history is taught in science class, such as the geocentric model and spontaneous generation

r2. Teaching
"My opponent defines teaching in an extremely defensive way" 
  • The definition isn't defensive at all, in fact, it came straight from oxford English languages and CON has not provided a single counter definition as pointed out in round two. 
"According to him, people shouldn't be taught creationism in the classical and controversial meaning of the phrase, that the schools should embrace the faith as truth"
  • Why is faith relevant here? We have faith in many things. I am just arguing that creationism should be taught. 
    • There are many theories for the origin of the universe all are uncertain and all require different amounts of faith. 
      • Teaching creationism does not necessitate that anyone accepts a particular religion. In fact, creationism can be completely a-religious. It just pertains to specific acts of divine creation. 

      • All the legal cases are irrelevant as we could be debating something entirely different. 

Conclusion
  • CON has dropped many points in this debate, such as my listing how his own metrics of what is and isn't teaching contradict each other in round one. Please vote PRO>




Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#6
I have little time to write, so this will be short.


Moving the goalpost:
Description: Creationism refers to 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. 
...
...
PRO in R3: Creationism does not preclude evolution and the two are not mutually exclusive.
 I fail to see how PRO isn't moving the goalpost. He is literally saying creationism doesn't preclude its definitional preclusion.


Truism debate:
All the legal cases are irrelevant as we could be debating something entirely different.
...
Creationism should be taught in history because it is an important aspect of history.
...
I think there are very convincing arguments that creationism should be taught in religious studies.
...
Creationism is also a theory and aspect of philosophy and in that regard, it should be taught in philosophy classes,

 And finally PRO'S grand assertion: CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all. 


PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He twists the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism in school"  so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible.

I invoked the CoC calling this a truism debate and PRO DID NOT OBJECT, thus conceding the point. Therefore, vote CON as truism debates are unacceptable and the voting guides calls to punish such debates. PRO never provided arguments for a non-truism interpretation of the resolution, so he can by definition not have won a fair debate to earn votes. His BoP is hardly touched on even if we disregard everything else.

I ask voters to vote responsibly.