Creationism should not be taught in schools.

[nonbeliever314]

I'm not sure it's in the letter of the law, but it is in the spirit of this forum that someone who poses a question here won't be blindsided with all kinds of extraneous commentary on their topic. So, I'm disappointed that my fellow believers are engaging in such behavior.

I doubt I'd be interested in debating you, but I thought I would check. If you had some specific conditions in mind - definitions of creationism, science class, school, etc. - what claims need to be supported and cited - whether judges would be used - and so forth. I just thought it would be worth hearing you out on what parameters you wanted to set.

I guess that since it seems to me there are many different ways creationism can be defined or presented, I'll leave the definition up to my opponent. Then I will debate why that should not be taught in the science class, or treated as a scientific theory. We'd each put up an opening argument, at (hopefully) the same time so that neither of our opening statements is influenced by the others. Then we'll each give 3 rebuttals, posted within a week of the others, then closing statements. I don't know how we'd judge it, but I'd welcome judges.

 

[Resha Caner]

I guess that since it seems to me there are many different ways creationism can be defined or presented, I'll leave the definition up to my opponent. Then I will debate why that should not be taught in the science class, or treated as a scientific theory. We'd each put up an opening argument, at (hopefully) the same time so that neither of our opening statements is influenced by the others. Then we'll each give 3 rebuttals, posted within a week of the others, then closing statements. I don't know how we'd judge it, but I'd welcome judges.

You're wise to leave the definition of creationism to your opponent, but you might want to know what their definition is before you accept the debate. According to YEC proponents I'm not a creationist, yet that is what I consider myself.

I think someone would have to define the other terms I mentioned, or even a formal debate would spin off into the weeds. For example, does "school" include private schools, universities, training programs within private organizations? I expect you meant K-12 public schools.

Finally, I've always thought it would be interesting to try judges. My idea would be to select 1 evolution supporter whom the creationist deems reasonable & respectable. The same for selecting a creationist judge the evolutionist agrees to. Then the judges would respond, not in terms of "she's right and he's wrong" but in terms of things like clarity, persuasiveness, logic, completeness ... whatever categories they would agree to use.

 

[nonbeliever314]

True, I should know what my opponents creationism entails first, good point. Private schools I'm not concerned about in terms of K-12, I'm referring more to public k-12 schools. Even though I don't think universities should teach it as well, unless they have a Christian denomination I guess. Even though the more I think about it, I would like to debate more generally that creationism is not science, if that would be fair. My arguments would involve evolution obviously, but there are many other things I am more versed in that I would like to use to debate as well. In terms of judging, that sounds fair. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

 

[bhsmte]

True, I should know what my opponents creationism entails first, good point. Private schools I'm not concerned about in terms of K-12, I'm referring more to public k-12 schools. Even though I don't think universities should teach it as well, unless they have a Christian denomination I guess. Even though the more I think about it, I would like to debate more generally that creationism is not science, if that would be fair. My arguments would involve evolution obviously, but there are many other things I am more versed in that I would like to use to debate as well. In terms of judging, that sounds fair. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

As an fyi, I would make sure you get certain definitions out of the way and agreed upon, before the debate. Otherwise, the waters can easily be muddied.

A definition on the following would help:

Science
Scientific theory
Creationism

Are three to come immediately to mind.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Very Well.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Creationism: I will leave that up to my opponent.

 

[Resha Caner]

True, I should know what my opponents creationism entails first, good point. Private schools I'm not concerned about in terms of K-12, I'm referring more to public k-12 schools. Even though I don't think universities should teach it as well, unless they have a Christian denomination I guess. Even though the more I think about it, I would like to debate more generally that creationism is not science, if that would be fair. My arguments would involve evolution obviously, but there are many other things I am more versed in that I would like to use to debate as well. In terms of judging, that sounds fair. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

That's fine. You can frame the debate however you choose. This makes it less likely I would be your opponent, though. I guess I would be willing to be one of the judges, but not the opponent.

Why? Because my position would be that some aspects of creationism aren't science (and so I agree with you in part), while other aspects are science (and so I would disagree in part). That might complicate the conversation too much.

 

[nonbeliever314]

That's fine. You can frame the debate however you choose. This makes it less likely I would be your opponent, though. I guess I would be willing to be one of the judges, but not the opponent.

Why? Because my position would be that some aspects of creationism aren't science (and so I agree with you in part), while other aspects are science (and so I would disagree in part). That might complicate the conversation too much.

Very well. Since you seem fair minded, I will elect you as a judge. And I guess I will await an opponent and we can go from there.

So I guess the question is who would like to be my opponent?

Thanks.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since you seem fair minded, I will elect you as a judge.

You'd better get advice from someone like bhsmte before you conclude I'm fair-minded.

 

[bloodbought09]

Which part of anti-lies and pro-truth are you referring to then, in the context of my question?

If science gets to the truth, knowledge, and understanding then it is good. I do not necessarily think that creationism ought to be termed "science". I do think that archaeology does support the bible in regards to the authenticity of places and things that took place in the bible. Sciences are interesting but evolution is distasteful to me. Also, the big bang theory does not hold my attention. I was not there to see the big bang and nor was anyone else. There can be no empirical truth in the big bang theory.

Now, am I a scientist or a student of science? No. I am a lover of God and His word. I am also not here to debate anything. I know what I think and what I believe. When I get into the sphere of science, being a novice, I cannot provide much information. But I can think enough to form my own opinions just as you have.

As for the scriptures, I know that the word will not return empty (void). It will go forth and do what it was intended to do. I would rather not debate but present the word. You can argue with God. You may win against me but in the end nothing gets by Him.

Jesus loves you. He loves you whether you accept or reject Him. But judgment is coming one day. Which side of the fence will you be on?

 

[nonbeliever314]

You'd better get advice from someone like bhsmte before you conclude I'm fair-minded.

Very well. I guess we don't necessarily need judges. At the very least, the debate could be a nice repository of arguments from both sides. If my opponent and I are scholary enough, maybe we could publish our debate somewhere where a larger audience can see both sides of the debate as well and let them decide, maybe in a poll or something of that nature.

 

[7angels]

Very Well.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Creationism: I will leave that up to my opponent.

first i would like to ask what the objective is? do i need to prove that creationism should be taught in schools or is the burden of disproving it yours?

second science is not my forte so if i do not understand where you are coming from or what you mean can i ask questions during the debate?

third you are defining science as basically proven facts about how the world works right?

forth scientific theory is gravity a scientific theory or scientific fact? if gravity is scientific fact then that tells me that anything proven is scientific fact correct? if gravity is a scientific theory then basically everything that refers to science is scientific theory right?

i wait your replies

God bless

 

[nonbeliever314]

first i would like to ask what the objective is? do i need to prove that creationism should be taught in schools or is the burden of disproving it yours?

second science is not my forte so if i do not understand where you are coming from or what you mean can i ask questions during the debate?

third you are defining science as basically proven facts about how the world works right?

forth scientific theory is gravity a scientific theory or scientific fact? if gravity is scientific fact then that tells me that anything proven is scientific fact correct? if gravity is a scientific theory then basically everything that refers to science is scientific theory right?

i wait your replies

God bless

1) I made a post where I sorta changed my argument to creationism is not scientific (which I'd rather debate), but regarding school, I would debate that creationism shouldn't be taught in science class (Specifically public K-12). Private K-12 schools that have a Christian denomination can do whatever they want.

2) I wouldn't mind after the three rebuttals, that maybe we could Q&A each other.

3) Science is essentially a method to understand the world around us. Science is more of something someone does to reach an understanding, more than it is a thing that describes "facts".

4) Gravity is fact, for example everyone knows everything falls back to the Earth, other bodies attract each other, etc, and we call it gravity. A theory of gravity such as Einstein's General Relativity describes gravity using mathematics to make highly accurate predictions of its behavior. It is a theory, yes, but has extraordinary experimental evidence that it indeed is a extremely good description of gravity. Any scientific theory is ALWAYS an approximation, there is always some small percentage of error. It would be ridiculous scientifically to assume that a theory matches nature 100%. But even though there is some margin of error, that does not mean it is wrong, and the highly accurate ones that have so much scrutinized evidence backing them, we usually treat them as a fact, because the evidence and predictions that theory makes are highly, highly accurate.

 

[ChetSinger]

...4) Gravity is fact, for example everyone knows everything falls back to the Earth, other bodies attract each other, etc, and we call it gravity. A theory of gravity such as Einstein's General Relativity describes gravity using mathematics to make highly accurate predictions of its behavior. It is a theory, yes, but has extraordinary experimental evidence that it indeed is a extremely good description of gravity. Any scientific theory is ALWAYS an approximation, there is always some small percentage of error. It would be ridiculous scientifically to assume that a theory matches nature 100%. But even though there is some margin of error, that does not mean it is wrong, and the highly accurate ones that have so much scrutinized evidence backing them, we usually treat them as a fact, because the evidence and predictions that theory makes are highly, highly accurate.

Hello! Sorry for butting in, but I suggest the two of you agree that gravity is a Law. Physical laws are what physicists call principles that always occur:

Physical law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particular, gravity is described by "Newton's law of physical gravitation":

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nonbeliever314]

Hello! Sorry for butting in, but I suggest the two of you agree that gravity is a Law. Physical laws are what physicists call principles that always occur:

Physical law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particular, gravity is described by "Newton's law of physical gravitation":

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law word is kind of touchy to me. I'd stick with gravity itself being a fact, in the sense that we observe it everyday, but it is described (to very high precision) by General relativity. Newtons gravity has been replaced by General relativity and is classical, and eventually General relativity will be superseded by a new theory that involves the quantum realm. General relativity breaks down at the quantum scale.

 

[ChetSinger]

The law word is kind of touchy to me. I'd stick with gravity itself being a fact, in the sense that we observe it everyday, but it is described (to very high precision) by General relativity. Newtons gravity has been replaced by General relativity and is classical, and eventually General relativity will be superseded by a new theory that involves the quantum realm. General relativity breaks down at the quantum scale.

There are numerous laws in physics: conservation, mechanics, theromodynamics, gravitation, gas, etc.

If you want to sound like a layman, use the word "fact". If you want to sound like a physicist, use the word "law" as it is defined in textbooks.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I would call newtons laws theories. General Relativity is a theory, and it's far more precise than Newtons Law of Gravitation and they don't call General Relativity a law. I guess I'm "maverick" physicist in that respect.

 

[ChetSinger]

I would call newtons laws theories. General Relativity is a theory, and it's far more precise than Newtons Law of Gravitation and they don't call General Relativity a law. I guess I'm "maverick" physicist in that respect.

I won't bother you again over this. But I am a physicist and I like these terms to be used precisely.

Cheers!

 

[nonbeliever314]

No problem. Obviously if I'm discussing them I'll just use their names, law of _____, theory of ______, but that's just the way I think about it. I have to ask you this since you're also a physicist, do you agree with William Lane Craig regarding his use Leibniz's Cosmological Argument?

 

[ChetSinger]

No problem. Obviously if I'm discussing them I'll just use their names, law of _____, theory of ______, but that's just the way I think about it. I have to ask you this since you're also a physicist, do you agree with William Lane Craig regarding his use Leibniz's Cosmological Argument?

I've never read WLC, actually. Nor had interest in cosmological arguments. Sorry. My field is acoustics, which is a long way from either cosmology or philosophy.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Anyone still up to debate?.....