This House believes Creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools (

Round 2, fight. 1. Save the brainwashed My opponent is feeding my analysis with his arguments, he just hasn't realized it yet. He states, "Creationism is a form of Brainwashing. It has been used in a collection of Evangelical churches who have promoted the most ridiculous concepts." I agree. He then goes on to state, "Creationism isn't worthy for a school debate because is would be equivalent of proposing how Micky Mouse created the universe." Right again, insofar as it would be a pretty one sided debate, wouldn't it? But that's my point. I'm articulating that many people in our society are brainwashed (by evangelical churches) from a young age. They grow up being told by authority figures that creationism is true. And so, without any form of debate, without any conflict of ideas, they believe it. The academic debate that would occur from this discussion, albeit one sided, is a chance for them to witness the conflict. It is perhaps one of the first times that many people experience a dissenting opinion on the matter. And so, this type of education is invaluable because it allows people who were previously brainwashed a chance to think for themselves. I understand my opponent's viewpoint. He sees this issue from the viewpoint of an atheist looking in at the religious world. I however attended a small catholic based liberal arts college. And so, although I am also an atheist, I was able to witness how my catholic friends responded to these debates. For some, these classroom debates simply ended with them walking away in disbelief, but for many others logic was a compelling force. When creationism is presented in a collegiate setting many people realize that it is tantamount to proposing that Micky Mouse created the universe. It is this realization that can help many people who never before questioned the topic. My opponent states that, "creationism doesn't demonstrate any form of application to develop the skills of a student in ... College or University." I seriously doubt his position. He previously argued that creationism is a form of brainwashing. My argument with therefor be that people questioning creationism is a form of critical thinking. The conflict of ideas promotes a skill set which allows people to reconsider the world for themselves. It promotes logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. Furthermore it gives people a tool set useful for deconstructing world views based on unsubstantiated claims. Finally, remember that my opponent thinks that more creationist thinkers leads to more discrimination and prejudice in the world. My educating those thinkers, and allowing them to reconsider their world view, there is only a chance for less discrimination and prejudice. 2. Cultural Understanding My opponents argument suffers from a massive lack of uniqueness. That is to say, even if creationism wasn't taught in schools, the same impacts would still occur. Why would this be true? Because churches and the bible still exist. It's not as if when we stop teaching creationism in schools, suddenly churches and bibles pop out of existence. Rather, a world without creationism in schools is still a world where it is taught in churches and through the bible. And so, whatever terrible impacts my opponent can foresee still happen with or without schools being involved. However, I'm making some pretty intuitive arguments in section 1 as to why this type of education in school would actually combat creationist thought. So, in reality, a world with creationism being taught in colleges and public universities is a world with less of the problem. But, my opponent is making a few more fundamental errors in this section. He suggests that creationism is a major contributing reason for conflict generation. I'll say it isn't so. The same sort of conflict could just as easily be generated if the westboro bapsist church strongly believed in the Koran, Buddhism, or even the flying spaghetti monster. Conflicts occur because of a misunderstanding between a subject and who they identify as the "other". The subject cannot rationalize the thoughts of another, and so believes the "other" to be an illogical entity. The conclusion (both from the crusades, and the westboro baptist church) is that the subject must use radical force in order to change the "others" perceptions. And that is why teaching the subject at universities and public colleges is advantageous. First it allows the subject to understand some of the viewpoints of the "other" through the conflict of ideas which occurs. Second, it allows the other to understand the viewpoints of the subject, which opens a better pathway of communication between the two. Third, it facilitates a moderated discussion between the two parties which is way better than the status quo (see: Westboro Baptist church yelling at funerals). Ultimately it allows both sides to view the thought process behind their respective positions. Although this might not change minds it seriously cuts either party viewing the other as in illogical entity and therefor inhibits otherization. Since creationism is already a rampant part of American society, facilitating more understanding has a serious chance of decreasing the violence that my opponent isolates. ************************************************************************************ Opponents Arguments: 1. Discrimination a. Creatiotoday and PPSiomons still exists in a world without creationism being taught in schools. Which means creationism is still being taught to the general public. b. My opponent says they don't care for opposing thought. That's probably a reason why introducing the subject, in a context where opposing thoughts are valued, is useful. c. My opponent argues that creationist education is promoting violence and discrimination against women / other races. This is probably a reason why we should teach creationism in a setting where other viewpoints are also interrogated. Not only could we deconstruct those biases but we could aid people who grew up with only that myopic viewpoint. d. Finally my opponent talks briefly about keeping god as personal belief. That stance is not mutually exclusive with teaching about creationism in school. You can simultaneously teach a subject without imposing it on others. This is why schools are a pretty useful median for the subject. 2. Unsubstantiated Conclusions: a. My opponent briefly argues that the representatives of creationism (Creatiotoday and PPSimons) don't understand opposing views. I'll say that's correct, and it's because that is their job. Those organization are trying to sell people on a philosophy, on a way to live their lives. Universities are intrinsically different, because their goal is to educate people and not to tell them how to live their lives. My arguments about considering opposing viewpoints therefor remains uncontested. Teaching the topic through universities and colleges only has a risk of undoing the harms that Creatiotoday and PPSimons are perpetuating. Extend the arguments I've been making. Schools can teach creationism and any other subjects, they are not stuck just teaching creationism. For instance, my collegiate theology class contained a two week section on creationism and then started a unit about Islam. 3. No way out - lets recap. a. Creationism is still going to be taught without schools teaching it. Which means my opponents harms will always occur. b. Schools have a chance of seriously alleviating the problem via promoting understanding and fighting brainwashing. c. Even if I lose all the previous points, somehow, my opponent doesn't address that religious ed majors should be taught creationism. Nor does he address the arguments about how this leads to political peace. Even winning this one point proves that creationism is productive, at least in some facet, in public schools. Fin.