• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Mr. Fungus said:
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more.
It's an interesting subject. Atheism is usually thought of the acceptance or belief that there is no God, weak atheism or agnosticism are usually what you are describing.

Secularism is the absence of all religious or anti-religious bias, which is a nice standard for a diverse culture like ours.

nkgupta80 said:
also, it is amazing how important and productive the idea of evolution has been in biology.
It virtually is biology.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Rick Santorum, R-PA:

Then:
Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”
2002 Washington Times op-ed article

Now:
“I do not believe it should be required teaching.”
12/21/2005 The Inquirer

Seems like the world is full of republican fundie flip-floppers.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
Rick Santorum, R-PA:

Then:
Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”
2002 Washington Times op-ed article

Now:
“I do not believe it should be required teaching.”
12/21/2005 The Inquirer

Seems like the world is full of republican fundie flip-floppers.


Come-on, be fair. The world is full of poiticians flip-flopping. It really is just being disingenuous to attribute it to one political party.
 
H

hipsterdufus

steen said:
Rick Santorum, R-PA:

Then:
Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”
2002 Washington Times op-ed article

Now:
“I do not believe it should be required teaching.”
12/21/2005 The Inquirer

Seems like the world is full of republican fundie flip-floppers.

Good work Steen, Rick "Santorum" Santorum is all over the map on this one. I can't wait to pull the lever for his opponent in 06!
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
MrFungus420 said:
Come-on, be fair. The world is full of poiticians flip-flopping. It really is just being disingenuous to attribute it to one political party.
Well, thre was the Bush flipflopping over whether to fire those involved in revealing ID of CIA agents. Oh wait! That was also a republ... Erm, I mean, I'll look for another one.

Seriously, though, those who make an ass out of themselves on the science/evolution issue are generally republicans (like bush who advocated the teaching of ID)..
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally posted by MrFungus420
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more. Saying that it is a religion is like saying that absolute zero is hot.

Yup.

You are saying that the lack of something is the same as that thing.

Correct. I'm sure he dosen't believe in mermaids? Hence, he's a amermaidist. The negative prefix "a" dosen't tell anything about what the amermaidist believes, only that they don't.
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
kal-el said:
Yup.



Correct. I'm sure he dosen't believe in mermaids? Hence, he's a amermaidist. The negative prefix "a" dosen't tell anything about what the amermaidist believes, only that they don't.

Nope! You're both wrong! To "believe/accept" anything without any data/proof and support a conclusion either way is to believe based in faith and by definition religion! Atheism is a religion! It is to believe there is no god with no data/proof to support your belief! Agnostics simply say, "Having no data/proof/no facts, I simply don't know and suspend judgement! I have no reason to believe in god since I see no evidence/data/proof to lead to that conclusion!" It's like saying, "Do you believe there a bird at a certain latitude and longitude at this very moment?" I have no data to use to form an opinion so, I have no reason to believe there is or is not! Whether these definitions of the terms fit grand philosophers, it's what makes sense to me!
:2wave:
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
Nope! You're both wrong! To "believe/accept" anything without any data/proof and support a conclusion either way is to believe based in faith and by definition religion! Atheism is a religion! It is to believe there is no god with no data/proof to support your belief!

You're overlooking the point that atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief. Without evidence, I do not believe that there is a diety. You are trying to say that to not believe in something because there is no evidence of it is the same as believeing in something without supporting evidence.

Mr. D said:
Agnostics simply say, "Having no data/proof/no facts, I simply don't know and suspend judgement! I have no reason to believe in god since I see no evidence/data/proof to lead to that conclusion!"

Not quite. Agnostics generally believe that there is no meaningful answer to the question of the existence of a god.

Mr. D said:
It's like saying, "Do you believe there a bird at a certain latitude and longitude at this very moment?" I have no data to use to form an opinion so, I have no reason to believe there is or is not!

A very bad analogy. You are talking about something that we know to exist, and a known place.

A better analogy would be if I told you that there is a parrot that lives at the south pole. Would you accept that without evidence? Or would you not believe it without evidence?

Mr. D said:
Whether these definitions of the terms fit grand philosophers, it's what makes sense to me!
:2wave:

If you want to base your point of view on your own definitions, I suppose that is your prerogative. It makes it rather difficult to have any sort of discourse, however, if you don't use the given definitions of words.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mr. D said:
Nope! You're both wrong! To "believe/accept" anything without any data/proof and support a conclusion either way is to believe based in faith and by definition religion! Atheism is a religion! It is to believe there is no god with no data/proof to support your belief! Agnostics simply say, "Having no data/proof/no facts, I simply don't know and suspend judgement! I have no reason to believe in god since I see no evidence/data/proof to lead to that conclusion!" It's like saying, "Do you believe there a bird at a certain latitude and longitude at this very moment?" I have no data to use to form an opinion so, I have no reason to believe there is or is not! Whether these definitions of the terms fit grand philosophers, it's what makes sense to me!
:2wave:

Why do I need faith to disbelieve in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. I would think not believing is the default position. Do you have faith that there is no tooth fairy? Of course not, you simply disbelieve because of the overwhelming lack of evidence.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is the Scientific Method then.....a religion?
 

bandaidwoman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
582
Reaction score
25
Location
Covington,Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
tecoyah said:
Is the Scientific Method then.....a religion?

No

The Scientific Method demands that we be prepared to reject a hypothesis or belief (when experimental data proves or disproves a scientific theory) but faith (religion) requires us to hold a belief with certainty.



At the most fundamental level, science and religion are distinguished from each other because of the latter's requirement of faith.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
bandaidwoman said:
No

The Scientific Method demands that we be prepared to reject a hypothesis or belief (when experimental data proves or disproves a scientific theory) but faith (religion) requires us to hold a belief with certainty.



At the most fundamental level, science and religion are distinguished from each other because of the latter's requirement of faith.

Even more importantly, science has the requirement of falsifiability. This, in my opinion, is what sets it apart from religion. Religion requires that you believe in something that absolutely cannot be proven, while science only accepts things that could be proven wrong.
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
kal-el said:
Why do I need faith to disbelieve in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. I would think not believing is the default position. Do you have faith that there is no tooth fairy? Of course not, you simply disbelieve because of the overwhelming lack of evidence.

I'm not explaining my point well! One more shot at it:

I accept your point above, but I think most athetists do not simply conclude there is no reason to believe there is a god based on lack of evidence, they actively need to conclude there is no god when there is no evidence to investigate or to lead one's conclusion either way! A complete lack of evidence supports no conclusion! "I just bought a new Chevy diesel pickup!" Do you believe that or not? Why conclude either way with no evidence other than my statement? Certainly you can say you have no reason to believe it, but you also have no reason to disbelieve it! Other than my statement, you have no evidence to support either opinion! Why not say, "I don't know whether your statement is accurate, rather than say I don't believe it? (It's accurate, although it's sitting in Flint, MI waiting to get shipped to me! Thanks GM!) My point is that most atheists seem to have a pyschological "need" to believe there is no god, as much as fundamentalist Christians "need" to believe there is a god! Both atheists and religious zealots seem to be biased and need to support their conclusions for pyschological reasons! That's why I said it seems most atheists and religious zealots believe in their ideology based on faith! They seem to pyschologically "need" to come to their conclusions!

As an agnostic, I don't "need" to believe there is no god! I simply see no evidence to support the concept other than it seems man likely did not create the universe! It would be comforting to find evidence of a good and loving god, but I haven't seen it yet! Unlike Ahab, I choose not to go mad trying to know what I can not know! My morality doesn't ride on that answer!

Did I do any better? If not, I give! :2wave:
 
Last edited:

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
A complete lack of evidence supports no conclusion!

It supports the conclusion that the concept is unworthy of further consideration.

"I just bought a new Chevy diesel pickup!" Do you believe that or not? Why conclude either way with no evidence other than my statement?

Your statement refers to things that can be verified: I could check that
Chevy diesel pickups exist and are available for purchase. I have observed
people buying vehicles. It is therefore a plausible statement. As nothing else
depends on its truth or falsehood, it is irrelevant whether I believe you or
not.

My point is that most atheists seem to have a pyschological "need" to believe there is no god, as much as fundamentalist Christians "need" to believe there is a god!

I can only speak for myself, but some extreme religious people are trying to
force their beliefs down my throat. Be they Christians, Moslems, or whatever,
it is important to demonstrate that their demands are based on no evidence.
Abortion, gay marriage, buying alcohol on Sunday, indoctrinating my children
at school, joining their superstition -- whatever the issue, it should be judged
on factual evidence, not on ancient writings. This is certainly not a
"pyschological need".

As an agnostic, I don't "need" to believe there is no god! I simply see no evidence to support the concept other than it seems man likely did not create the universe!

The reality of this point (which really belongs to another thread) is that
people with a belief cannot understand how other people can fail to believe,
and so they try to resolve their own conflict by labelling "lack of belief" as
an actual belief. It is, of course, utter nonsense.
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Thinker said:
It supports the conclusion that the concept is unworthy of further consideration.

The reality of this point (which really belongs to another thread) is that
people with a belief cannot understand how other people can fail to believe,
and so they try to resolve their own conflict by labelling "lack of belief" as
an actual belief. It is, of course, utter nonsense.

I accept both your points, but I still maintain many athetists are biased in their "need" to establish, to prove a lack of god with no evidence to support that belief! That need goes from normal logic to the fervor of religious belief! It seems those who do so, operate on faith rather than as you say merely a lack of evidence. Many atheists tell others there is no god, I simply say I don't know because I have no evidence to lead to that conclusion save man did not apparently create the universe!

I'm done! Interesting back and forth!

Mr. D
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
Many atheists tell others there is no god...

... but usually only when others have raised the issue.

In my experience the label "atheist" only comes out when religion is used as a
reason or excuse for irrational actions such as banning this or deprecating that.
You don't see pairs of besuited athesists going round knocking on doors trying to
convert others. Which channel shows the atheist preachers when the Christian
ones are in full spate?

It is those believing in gods who insist on telling others that they exist.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Engimo said:
Even more importantly, science has the requirement of falsifiability. This, in my opinion, is what sets it apart from religion. Religion requires that you believe in something that absolutely cannot be proven, while science only accepts things that could be proven wrong.


Exactly.

The statement "There is no God" is a hypothesis perfectly consistent with the scientific method.

It conforms with all known data, but a person adhering to this statement is free to reject it when additional data finally refutes it.

Atheism isn't religion, it's science!
 

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Exactly.

The statement "There is no God" is a hypothesis perfectly consistent with the scientific method.

It conforms with all known data, but a person adhering to this statement is free to reject it when additional data finally refutes it.

Atheism isn't religion, it's science!

A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists! Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting? To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject! A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!

Creationism and Atheism are not science not matter how you try to make them science! They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data! In Creationism since we can't explain how the Universe was created as a fact, god must have done it! In Atheism since we can find no proveable facts proving there is a god, there must be no god! Poor logic and not science! Lack of proof neither confirms or denies anything! We simply don't know! If atheism scientifically proves there is not god, show me the proof instead of telling me you have no proof! You can't prove a true negative!

It doesn't hurt that much to just say, "We don't know the answer!" Try it!
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Mr. D said:
A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists! Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting? To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject! A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!

Creationism and Atheism are not science not matter how you try to make them science! They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data! In Creationism since we can't explain how the Universe was created as a fact, god must have done it! In Atheism since we can find no proveable facts proving there is a god, there must be no god! Poor logic and not science! Lack of proof neither confirms or denies anything! We simply don't know! If atheism scientifically proves there is not god, show me the proof instead of telling me you have no proof! You can't prove a true negative!

It doesn't hurt that much to just say, "We don't know the answer!" Try it!

You're missing an important distinction:

Atheism does not say definitively that there IS no god. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. In the same way that you do not believe in invisible unicorns, atheists do not believe in god. I guarantee that all atheists would be accepting of god if positive evidence were presented for his existence, but the logical default is to be skeptical of anything being asserted that has no proof. Atheism and theism are not logically equivalent.
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
bryanf said:
Well, I haven't seen convincing evidence making evolution any more credible than intelligent design.

The ignorance displayed by writers here is breathtaking. If you're going to
post, it would be better if you did a little research to get a clue about what
you are saying. The minimum would be to read what other people have said
so you don't propagate mistaken ideas.

Evolution is simply the observable fact that living things change from
generation to generation. You are different from your parents, and there is
only a tiny chance that your gentic makeup is the same as that of anyone
else (i.e., you have an identical twin). That is evolution in action. What more
convincing do you need?

Since both are theories, then it wouldn't be fair to teach one without giving airtime to the other.

ID is only a "theory" in the common usage of the term, where it means little
more than a guess.

In scientific circles, a theory is very different. It needs to be backed up by a
considerable weight of evidence and successful predictions, and has to fit in
with existing knowledge; it is as close to fact as you can get.

ID can in no way be called a scientific theory as no evidence whatsoever has
been put forward for it.

There is no possible way that science can prove or disprove the origin of the universe, so anything taught to explain it is theory, based on faith.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe; it only
deals with changes in living things.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr. D said:
A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists!

I've looked under a lot of rocks trying to find dragons, unicorns, leprechauns, and God.

I've never found any. Any good scientist recognizes that absence of evidence is indeed data indicating absence.

All you need to prove me wrong is to pull your god of your hat, wipe the rabbit turds off him, and hand him over.


Mr. D said:
Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting?

Well, that's a pretty dumb question. What does "beyond the universe" mean, and will those future scientists be using those undetectable planets as an excuse for everything that happens everywhere?

Mr. D said:
To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject!

You'll note that I didn't say "no".

Mr. D said:
A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!

Right, and a good scientist will say that a person saying there's no planets outside the universe is a perfectly valid thing to say because by definition there's no meaning to the concept "outside" the universe.

[/quote]Creationism and Atheism are not science not matter how you try to make them science![/quote]

Creationism isn't science because it's a bunch of superstitious religious nonsense.

Atheism approximates the scientific method in that it's assertions can be disproven.

Mr. D said:
They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data!

But there is data. Everywhere you look for God, you find zero. That's plottable on any map. Rather than arguing against the methodology, you should be out there turning over more rocks. All you need is one little god to prove the theory of atheism wrong. One.

She allegedly made the entire universe, but She didn't leave not one single bit of evidence behind? It's a miracle!
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Atheism isn't religion, it's science!

Atheism is not science. A physicist can examine the Universe and make just as much argument for the existance of a God as one can make for the non-existance of one. I know physicists who are Christians. No, not at some Bible college but at one of the top research Universities in America. Some physicists argue that because it's so hard for amino acids to form into complex chains, that there must have been some kind of guidance. There have been many leading physicists that have argued the existance of a god for various reasons, many of which are beyond my expertise to explain. It's a scientific conclusion based on fact. Actually, it's just an opinion but to say there isn't a God is also just an opinion. The truth is, nobody knows yet. You can't compare the idea of a god or an intelligent creator to that of the Easter Bunny or something because the idea of a god is fundamentally different from those rather silly, fantasy creatures. The idea of a god is far more rational than a dragon, a unicorn, etc. Because like I said, the idea of a god can be a natural conclusion of scientific analysis of the Universe. If you actually look at science communities throughout Universities, the overwhelming majority are not atheists. Most of the great scientists in the past have not been atheists. Most of my friends who teach science at the University level have said that most science Professors are either really strong atheists or really strong theists.

I think it is foolish for anybody to discount the possiblity of a god unless they themselves have studied physics and math in depth.

To give you an example of what I've stated-consider the pyramids. Nobody as of yet can determine a solid explanation of how they were built, leading many to conclude that they were created by extraterrestrial life. There is not direct evidence to prove this but does that mean we should just rule the possiblity out? Should we just dismiss it and toss it aside? To do so would be just as foolish as saying that humans must have built the Pyramids, just because we don't have proof otherwise. This is the analogy and this is why agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism does.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
Atheism is not science. A physicist can examine the Universe and make just as much argument for the existance of a God as one can make for the non-existance of one. I know physicists who are Christians. No, not at some Bible college but at one of the top research Universities in America. Some physicists argue that because it's so hard for amino acids to form into complex chains, that there must have been some kind of guidance. There have been many leading physicists that have argued the existance of a god for various reasons, many of which are beyond my expertise to explain.

Appeal to Authority, and you also do not understand what you are talking about.
It's a scientific conclusion based on fact.

If this is true, show me a peer-reviewed paper proving the existence of God. If it is science, this should not be a problem.

If you actually look at science communities throughout Universities, the overwhelming majority are not atheists. Most of the great scientists in the past have not been atheists. Most of my friends who teach science at the University level have said that most science Professors are either really strong atheists or really strong theists.

Appeal to Authority.

I think it is foolish for anybody to discount the possiblity of a god unless they themselves have studied physics and math in depth.

Really? Have you?

To give you an example of what I've stated-consider the pyramids. Nobody as of yet can determine a solid explanation of how they were built, leading many to conclude that they were created by extraterrestrial life.

Which would be an appeal to ignorance.

There is not direct evidence to prove this but does that mean we should just rule the possiblity out? Should we just dismiss it and toss it aside? To do so would be just as foolish as saying that humans must have built the Pyramids, just because we don't have proof otherwise. This is the analogy and this is why agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism does.

You're missing the distinction: Atheism does NOT say that there is definitively no God. Atheism says that there is no reason to believe in God. These are two entirely different statements. I am sure the vast majority of atheists, if presented with evidence for the existence of God, would accept it. Atheists do not rule out the existence of God as an impossibility or simply by virtue of dogma, they say that it is nonsensical to believe in a God without proof - they are making no assertions.
 
Top Bottom