Can anyone give me some help with a debate??

Question

I am leading a debate in class tommorow about creationism being taught in schools. I am on the opposing side and feel very strongly about it. I know what I am going to say and everything but I would like to hear some other points, in case there's something I missed. I don't want to hear anything about why creationism SHOULD be taught in schools, so Christians don't waste my time or yours.

Answer 1

Teaching creationism in school would be unconstitutional, since it goes against the establishment clause ("The government shall not establish a religion").

There is a seperation of church and state.

Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. There is a difference. Religion does not belong in a science class.

It would be biased, since teachers would only teach Christian creationism.

Answer 2

Creationism is a very general term that is usually applied to the belief the judeo/christian Deity created the world in six days. There are dozens of other creation myths (sorry, theories) that attribute the existence of everything
to a variety of other deities as well.

So, a few options:

1. Politically: Public schools are funded by taxpayers, and are therefore operating under the confines of state law (where state refers to the government of the people rather than geographical location). The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

Basically, the argument is that you cannot use public monies to support a system of belief which is not shared to or run counter to a large portion of that public.

2) Scientific: There is no empirical evidence to support the theory of creation. At all. No matter what anyone else in the responses tell you. I promise. When evolution is taught, it shows the manner in which the geophysical structure of the planet has been altered over millions and millions of years, how the fossil record has literally millions of cataloged examples showing the minute changes over time which connects humans and other animals with our prehistoric ancestry. The fact that all the answers are not known is immaterial, at least for the sake of your argument. It is more telling that most of the tenets of creation theory can be disprove by the existence of the evidence of evolution.

Answer 3

Whoa, I'm a Christian, but I'm against creationism being taught in schools.

Why? I'll tell you why:
1. Creationism is not a proven science.
2. I would not want someone who didn't believe God created the heavens and earth teaching creationism to my children. They would put their own slant on it, and make it sound as stupid as possible. For some reason, I keep picturing my biology teacher saying something like "invisible sky fairy." No thanks.
3. Religion does not belong in school, unless it's a parochial school.
4. Which version of creationism would they be teaching? There are so many! There's the Judeo-Christian version, the Hindu version, the Taoist version, the Buddhist version, the Native American version...not to mention all the Greek, Roman, Celtic, Egyptian, et cetera creation myths. It would take YEARS to go over them all! Heck, that's a study in and of itself!
5. Religion has no place in any secular school. Wait, did I already say that?

Answer 4

There has not been any actual science done relating to Creation, so it certainly does not belong in science class. Evolution is a fact - animals evolve and we can observe it. The theory explaining the mechanism is still being developed, but what we have is pretty concrete. You'll come up against the "a watch can't create itself - there must have been a watchmaker" bs, but I always say that the only reason we believe a watch or painting or computer has a creator is because we have LEARNED that there is a creator for these things. Otherwise, we would have no reason to believe there was a creator behind them. If they bring up anything remotely religious, you can squash it with the separation of church and state. Also ask which creation myth would be taught in schools - Hindu? Cherokee? Mayan? How do you pick one?

Answer 5

I agree with another answer, that your preparation should include figuring out a good answer for arguments the other side could bring.
I find this website very helpful:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996
It is a creationist website, which actually brings arguments against some most common misconceptions of evolutionary theory. Their aim is to protect creationists from using proven stupid arguments (not that most creationists ever seem to read it). But even a most fervent creationist will be more open to arguments listed on a creationist website than a pro-evolution website. You can also look through what their "accepted"arguments against evolution are.
If you haven't looked through it anyway you should also visit the talkorigins website. E.g. the one with observed instances of speciation is useful http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html, as a common (wrong) argument against evolution is that it never has been observed.

In general it seems to be worthwhile to point out that scientists don't oppose creationism not being mentioned in school at all. It is just that they say it has no place in a science class (e.g. taught as an alternative to evolution). I don't think there is any objection to teaching it in philosophy or ethics classes, just as there wouldn't be any objection to other mythologies or schools of thought.

Answer 6

Ockham's razor:
The best theory is the theory with the smallest amount/influence of variables and/or indeterminate factors.

The less a theory conforms to this criterium the more useless it is in it's application. It is very hard to predict anything on the basis of creationism, while evolution allows us to see the consequences and predict future results.

Compare it to using the 9th century idea that thunderstorms are created by the god Thor riding around the clouds in a goat carriage throwing a hammer the sparks of which's impact are lightning or using weather satelites/science. Which has the best application and prediction value?

(Sorry Thor I don't mean to offend, you're just too hard to notice for people these days)

Answer 7

Use The Flying Spaghetti Monster, he was created for this very purpose. Use FSM to point out the massive flaws in religion and then say how if Creationism is taught then so should the FSM. If you want extra marks then mention some creation myths such as Ymir or the Cosmic Egg (research them).

Answer 8

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, The Court basically ruled that while evolution is a theory and a fact, creationism and intelligent design are not plausible or scientific.

I didnt know something could be a theory and a fact at the same time.

Answer 9

The only "good" slightly logical reason that I can think of is that creationism is typically associated with religion. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Also, there are many creation stories (although the Christian version is the most popular), which version do you teach, and why don't you teach all of them?

I hope this helps in your prep other than that, I don't know what might get thrown at you.

Answer 10

Did you know that evolutionism is foundational to some religions, too?

If the earth and the universe were just a random cosmic accident, what reason would there be for it to follow any sort of natural laws?

Perhaps you are not aware how evolutionary thought has led to the retardation of scientific progress, mass murder, and genocide. After all, how should we expect children to act when we teach them that they are nothing more than the end result of natural selection and mutations with no God to which they must answer?

What concerns me is that children within the public school system are being brainwashed by evolutionary religion. children are being taught that they are just evolved pond scum, that there are no absolutes, and that they can decide what is right for them. I hope this concerns you, since you care what children are taught. Without absolutes, children will do what feels good and right for themselves (likely at the expense of others). Not to mention that the belief in evolution continues to retard education and scientific advancement (e.g. junk-DNA) and ruin the careers of those who are actually doing excellent research and not toeing the line.

I certainly hope this helped! Hey, I even know where Cain got his wife. However, if evolution is true, science has an even bigger problem to explain than Cain's wife. Like how did man evolve by mutations (mistakes) in the first place, since that process would have made everyone's children deformed? The fact that people can produce offspring that are not deformed is a testimony to creation, not evolution.

Answer 11

DEFINE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD - People make observations and make an educated guess about observations. This educated guess is called a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis has passed multiple tests of verification through data and other verifiable physical evidence, it then becomes a scientific theory. Any concept that has not one shred of physical evidence or observation to back it up cannot even be elevated to the level of an educated guess and cannot be considered science.

SCIENTIFIC POINT- Show that creation is religion and not science. There is physical evidence to support evolution, which is why it is called a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence to support creation other than religious doctrine, therefore it is not science but it is religion and has no place in a science class.

RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY POINT - Do this after you have established that creation is religion. Ask which creation story should you teach in school, there are literally thousands of religious creation stories that are equally devoid of evidence to back them up and to teach any one of them without teaching all others would be promoting favoritism to a particular religion. If a public school does choose to teach one creation story over another, it only serves to discriminate against those students that do not follow that religion and can subject them to isolation, discrimination and even physical attack by other students following the fundamentalist orders of extreamist religions. Schools should be religiously neutral and thus free from religion for the safety of the students.

LEGAL POINT - It is unconstitutional per the first amendment to use the government to establish any religion by teaching it in a public school.

LOGICAL PROBABILITY POINT - The likely hood of life evolving over hundreds of millions of years little by little has a higher probability of happening than an infinitely more advanced being instantly popping out of nothing and creating everything.

HARM TO SOCIETY POINT - Teaching people to illogically put concepts that they do not fully understand into the "god did it" box brainwashes people into not thinking for themselves and hinders people from learning about and exploring things that they do not currently understand. This harms society by discouraging the logical thought process thus depriving the scientific community of the logical minds needed to seek solutions for the benifit of all mankind.