Bleck.
We're doing debate speeches in speech 2 right now, and the topic that I wanted really badly was: "Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in school?" Well that's the topic Mrs. Goetten gave me- with a little twist.
She tells me that the only way I can give that speech is if someone from 5th hour comes in during 1st hour to debate me. So I say sure, who would that be?
Joe Vellella.
I really wanted to debate with this topic, but if I was to debate against him I think that it would end up being "Creation vs. Evolution" and not whether it should be taught in school. I'm still thinking about it because I think it could be extremely interesting, but I don't want it to get heated and then one of us get upset.
Dang.
And now I'm all flip floppy because I see BOTH sides of the argument. Poopers.
ReplyDeleteLOL. You and Joe can handle it!
ReplyDeleteYou guys are close! :D
Sounds fun... I debated food is schools, so...
haha
I don't know which side of the debate about creationism being taught in the public schools you would be on, but there are good, logical and constitutional arguments against teaching evolution in the public schools. As I point out in my website on evolution, the scientific method does not allow science to prove that evolution occurred because the scientific method does not allow consideration of supernatural causes, thus it cannot look at both sides without bias, which is a prerequisite for proof. In other words, you can't prove something if you only look at one side, and science cannot look at both sides. Science is limited to only considering natural causes for evidence. And since science cannot prove evolution occurred, it has no right to call it a fact or to state dogmatically that it happened.
ReplyDeleteScience teaches evolution like it's a fact and nto a theory anyway... so yes there are a lot of legit arguments for it. I'll have a lot of points on this topic, but with who I am debating is the problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&NR
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
ReplyDeletewatch the videos, they might give you a bit of context in preparing for your debate
cheers!
Lol oh man I wish hadn't jumped into this convo late.
ReplyDelete(Megan I don't want to get too preachy because I think you already know where I stand, and I know this post was more about Joe than about starting a debate, but... Penman said hurtful things.)
Penman, correct me if I got this wrong, but this is basically your argument right?
1) Science cannot prove the supernatural.
2) Science is biased against the supernatural.
Therefore: Science shouldn't be trusted.
Really? This is a slippery slope. You just said science is biased against everything that can't be proven, therefore everything that can't be proven should be accepted. The purpose of science is to prove things. Theology is mostly interpretation and guesswork, which is good for certain situations, but goes completely against the scientific method. Science finds the facts first, and then determines the conclusion, not the other way around.
El Kabong:
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that you said that I said "hurtful things." How? I was not rude.
Actually, you did not get my exact meaning.
I am not saying that the supernatural cannot be proved. What I am saying is that science has, by the scientific method, imposed rules or limitations on itself that will not allow science to even consider the possibility of the supernatural, either to prove or disprove it. Science cannot prove the supernatural, or disprove it, or even raise the question of whether the supernatural exists. Science will not allow itself, or scientists in the course of their work, to ask the question of whether the supernatural exists, or to raise the possibility, or to discuss it.
If a scientist thought he found evidence of the supernatural, he would not be allowed to publish it in his work as a scientist. That is because the scientific method, as it is practiced, forbids even the CONSIDERATION of the POSSIBILITY of the supernatural as a cause for any physical event or evidence.
Science in effect says, "We assume, without proof one way or another, that there are no supernatural causes for any physical event or evidence. Therefore we will not waste time considering the possibility of the supernatural in any work we do."
But in saying that science cannot prove whether the supernatural exists or not, I am not saying that the supernatural cannot be proved. It certainly can be proved by any reasonable person. But not by the scientific method, and not in science as long as science follows the scientific method as it does now.
Science limits itself. That is the reason it cannot prove if evolution occurred or not. But any reasonable person can prove God's existence and the inspiration of the Bible, provided he does not limit himself to the scientific method as a means of discovering truth.