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

My opponent has made 2 points that I would to like to counter and I would like to counter the points he has made as a rebuttal to my arguments. 1)Reality > Brainwashing My opponent has not explained clearly enough what he/she means by brainwashing. According the Oxford English Dictionary Brainwashing means "the imposition of a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs". My opponent has not understood what a productive form of education is and how the curriculum of Creationism promotes effective working skills students can transfer into their later development. Teaching Creationism is a form of Brainwashing. It has been used in a collection of Evangelical churches who have promoted the most ridiculous concepts without any evidence to support their claims. Creationism isn't worthy for a school debate because it would be equivalent of proposing how Micky Mouse created the universe because since there is no evidence to support it. I understand a conflict of ideas can be very useful however Creationism isn't worthy of discussion in classrooms simply because it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions which my opponent has agreed with in his prior argument. Ideas are valued by their application and creationism doesn't demonstrate any form of application to develop the skills of a student in Primary and Secondary schools, College or University. Unless my opponent proves otherwise I have no reason to believe there is any application for Creationism to be taught. As I would like to place emphasis on teaching Creationism would be the equivalent of teaching Micky Mouse being responsible for creating the Universe. It doesn"t present any value for a discussion in schools of education. The reason I have brought it up for debate on this site is so clarifications can be made regarding certain points of view and to illustrate a more vivid picture for the reasons why Creationism has no application in an educational system. For an educational system to be productive the students must have developed skills they can transfer into their lives to contribute to an all-inclusive society. 2)Creationism does not promote Cultural Understanding My opponent"s second point regards how Creationism can contribute to a Cultural Understanding to prevent violence. I agree regarding to understanding the perspective of certain points of view however Creationism has contributed to many conflicts. Take the Wesboro Baptist Church for example. They adopt the Creationist position and claim it to be the literal word of the Christian God. They adopt this position and openly discriminate and promote prejudice against individuals who believe otherwise. This has hugely influenced the young people who are in the Church. They have not just openly expressed their prejudice against others but have often engaged into violence. This is one of the many examples of how the literal interpretation of the Bible as proposed by Creationism. I can also give reference to the Crusades of the Christians who had engaged in open war to fight over their beliefs with other cultures and religions. My rebuttal to his rebuttal 1)My opponent"s rebuttal to my point regarding creationism ignores how I have given reference to Creatiotoday and PPSiomons who act as advocates of the Creationist belief. The have demonstrated no thought for discussion or care for opposing views (view their channel for videos to review this point). My opponent has ignored the fact of Creationism teaches young people to create an unfair bias against others who share different beliefs. Creationist education promotes unfair treatment of one person or a group, usually because of their prejudice about race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. I can give reference to the abuse the female gender has suffered due to the literal interpretations of the Bible as well as the fact it played a huge role when authorities promoted slavery and racial discrimination which is still a problem today in societies. Not once have I suggested we should get rid of the belief in God. I believe it should be reserved as a personal belief rather than people imposing it above and beyond everyone else especially when they claim to be speaking the word of an authority figure without justification. 2)My Opponents second rebuttal is a response to the point I made regarding Creationism being based on unsubstantiated assumptions. The curriculum of Creationism claims to be the literal interpretation of God and the ultimate truth. I agree with my opponents how discussing about unsubstantiated assumptions can prove to be useful however from the representatives I have presented do not demonstrate any understanding to opposing views and beliefs. Creatioinism as I have mentioned a few times teaches the literal interpretation of God"s word from the Bible. Judging from what I have read of their curriculum it does not offer any other points of view. My opponent goes on to make a third rebuttal regarding Creationism does not just how the Christian God created the Universe. It teaches a more deistic position. Meaning how it proposed a whole range of religions in their curriculum. I have reviewed the teachings of the schools who teach Creationism and I have not seen this presented at all. As you can see from the comments a deistic position I have outlined is promoted through "Intelligent design" which basically claims a god was responsible for the Big Bang and all of the other processes involved in the creation of the universe that science has discovered. Creationism claims to be the literal word of God. As I have presented Creationtoday promote Creationism and they have not presented any other religions in their proposed curriculum in fact they demonize other beliefs such as Islam, the Jewish faith and more. The burden of proof for my opponent is to provide us with conclusive and examined evidence of how Creationism can help a young person develop skills they can use to contribute to the progress of society. My opponent will also have to review the responses I made to his arguments and rebuttals and demonstrate why I am wrong. I look forward to the response.