• 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"

M14 Shooter said:
Wow.
"We dont have any better idea, so we teach this as fact."
THAT'S solid.


Seems to me, ID explains everything.
And, its entirely possible that ID happened in such a way that supports evolution.

But the fact of the matter is, Evolution isnt a fact, and teaching it as such in a strong example of intellectual dishonesty.

we're not teaching it as a fact, a lot of science is not fact. But you don't go on telling them this may nmot be right again and agian. Its a waste of time. Evolution is pretty damn close to a fact, and since there is no alternative (Evolution works the best).

ID doesn't explain any genetical or biological phenomena other than by saying a creating force created it. WOW. That does explain a lot. You should go tell oncologists that as they research for a cure to cancer. MAybe they should go find this intelligent designer, and ask how we may go by treating this disease.

As for intelligent design supporting evolution, maybe it can at a purely philosophical level. I could say that an intelligent creator used evolution as a tool to create life on earth. Ok but so what. That may be right, that may be wrong. Science doesn't care, cause that one statement doesn't matter. Introducing the factor of a higher being into science completely negates all scientific inquiry. If I can attribute life to an intelligent designer, then why not black holes or star formation or particle physics. Hell I'll have the answer to everything: intelligent designer.

that is why we don't need this ID crap in science. It doesn't help in research or application of science at all. rather it can be detrimental. WE can teach creationist stories in humantieis and english and stuff, but science is science, and we'll leave it at that. And yes, evolution very beautifully binds genetics and biology.
 
nkgupta80 said:
we're not teaching it as a fact, a lot of science is not fact. But you don't go on telling them this may nmot be right again and agian. Its a waste of time.
Yeah.
Lets not tell them the truth, and then let them make up their own minds as to if its a waste of time or not.

Evolution is pretty damn close to a fact, and since there is no alternative (Evolution works the best).
You dont see the epistimological hole here?
"we're teaching you this and we're letting you think its a fact for no reason other than we dont have a better explanation"?
That borders the absurd.


ID doesn't explain any genetical or biological phenomena other than by saying a creating force created it. WOW.
Evolution doesnt explain that, either.
Genetic/biologic phenomenon stand on their own.

Introducing the factor of a higher being into science completely negates all scientific inquiry. If I can attribute life to an intelligent designer, then why not black holes or star formation or particle physics. Hell I'll have the answer to everything: intelligent designer.
Whats your point?
If its true - so what?
 
M14 Shooter said:
Yeah.
Lets not tell them the truth, and then let them make up their own minds as to if its a waste of time or not.

how is evolution ont the truth. From the results shown in applications of evolution in research, and the way it helps us undersand biological, medical, and genetic phenomena and processes, evolution seems very true. Can creationism ever tell us why an animal behaves the way it does? Or why one protein is similar to another? Or why the cell processes in bacteria can be emulated in humans? no not at all.

You dont see the epistimological hole here?
"we're teaching you this and we're letting you think its a fact for no reason other than we dont have a better explanation"?
That borders the absurd.

No, we're not teaching other alternatives because there rae none. Read my last paragraph of how intelligent design just doesn't cut it as an alternative in science. It is not applicable in research and understanding of detailed biology.

We're teaching evolution because it is THE BEST explanation. You can argue against it all you want, but frankly, evolution is what has give us the understanding to undertake the research that has lead to great discoveries in the past century. Of course people who don't try to understand it may end up trying ot prove it wrong. I find that stupid.

Evolution doesnt explain that, either.
Genetic/biologic phenomenon stand on their own.

what the hell are you talking about....of course genetic and biologic phenomena are tied. Its this very relationship that has boosted medical and biological research these last 150 years. Without evolution, we wouldn't be very far in our research and discoveries.

Whats your point?
If its true - so what?

my point is that you can't introduce intelligent design into science. It completely destroys scientific inquiry. Tell me, why can't I tell kids that theory of relativity is only a thoery, and that an alternate is an intelligent designer controlling every movement. I could also tell kids that since theory of gravity is not complete, our only alternative is that an intelligent being controls gravity. Maybe I'll be letting them think for themselves.
Secondly, ur statement about it being true is totally up to the person. I could say that I don't believe that there is an intelligent designer, and you'd be at a loss to prove it to me. There are many great scientists who do believe in a god and evolution. Howveer, when it comes to research, they'd prob never be considering an intelligent designer in their calculuations, in their hypotntific community. Science is the objective study of the physical realities around us. Leave god's role to philosophy.
 
how is evolution ont the truth.
Because its a theoiry, not a fact.
And the comment about 'tellig them thruth' refers to telling that it is a theory, rather than glossing over the fact that it is a theory.


From the results shown in applications of evolution in research, and the way it helps us undersand biological, medical, and genetic phenomena and processes, evolution seems very true.
"Seems very true".
Please compare and contrast the term "seems very true" to "is true:.
When you do that, you'll see the point of my disagreement with you.

Can creationism ever tell us why an animal behaves the way it does? Or why one protein is similar to another? Or why the cell processes in bacteria can be emulated in humans? no not at all.
Even if thats true - so what?
Does that mean its not how things got here?
No, not at all.

No, we're not teaching other alternatives because there rae none.
Clearly, thats not true.

my point is that you can't introduce intelligent design into science. It completely destroys scientific inquiry.
Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?

Tell me, why can't I tell kids that theory of relativity is only a thoery, and that an alternate is an intelligent designer controlling every movement.
You can. No reason you can't.

I could also tell kids that since theory of gravity is not complete, our only alternative is that an intelligent being controls gravity. Maybe I'll be letting them think for themselves.
Psst...
Gravity is a physical law, not a theory.

Secondly, ur statement about it being true is totally up to the person. I could say that I don't believe that there is an intelligent designer, and you'd be at a loss to prove it to me.
Just as you cannot prove evolution...
 
Because its a theoiry, not a fact.
And the comment about 'tellig them thruth' refers to telling that it is a theory, rather than glossing over the fact that it is a theory.

by calling it the theory of evolution, that is enough. WE don't call it the LAW of evolution. But science teachers shouldn't be telling kids that a viable alternative to evolution is intelligent design.



"Seems very true".
Please compare and contrast the term "seems very true" to "is true:.
When you do that, you'll see the point of my disagreement with you.

nothing in science "IS TRUE." A lot of new science is conclusions based on old facts. Natural selection, i'll say IS true. Some finer points of evolution are still in research stages. Origins of life is much more debateable, but that is also in the research state.

Even if thats true - so what?
Does that mean its not how things got here?
No, not at all.

so what? If evolution is applicable in those instances, proven through taxonomy, behavioural biology, fossil records, radiodating, etc, then how is it not a very well supported theory? Fact of the matter is, creationism does not apply to science. Open-minded creationism belongs in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?

The idea has been considered... some scientists believe in evolution and god also. However in application, intelligent design is useless. Thus science disregards the its notions.

You can. No reason you can't.

of course you can't. We're teaching kids science and the critical thinking that comes with science. INtroducing them to all possible, imaginable alternatives would be wasting time. Teachers are supposed to guide, not merely throw out all different ideas.



Psst...
Gravity is a physical law, not a theory.

only the effects of gravity is a physical law, not gravity itself. Gravity itself is still something to be completely defined.

Just as you cannot prove evolution...
you just glossed over my whole spiel on how evolutoin has been an important concept in medical, biological, and genetic research in the last 150 yeras. When one can correctly apply a theory and by applying it, accurately predict the outcomes, the theory gains validity. Evolution has done that in COUNTLESS applications.
 
Saying that Evolution is wrong or "not true" simply because it is a theory is patently absurd as an argument. Evolution is a theory. A theory is not 100% proven. Nothing is 100% proven. Humans have no absolute knowledge. We have approximate, substantiated knowledge via inductive and deductive reasoning (amalgamated in the Scientific MEthod).

Scientific Theories work via empirical substantiation (direct and indirect observation) as well as deductive logic. The deductive logic aspect of the Scientific Method occures by creating predictions and then testing those predictions against the observations to see if they hold true. THis is exactly how Evolution has become a valid, powerful theory. A theory's strength is based off of:

A. Successful Predictions based on evidence
B. Logical Parsimony.
C. Falsifiability

Science closely follows logical principles, and one major principle is the Principle of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor. It basically states that among competing theories with equally powerful levels of evidence, you choose the theory which multiplies the fewest entities.

Let us apply this concept to Evolution vs. (un)Intelligent Design.

1. Creationism: For creationism to be a valid scientific theory, it would have to be falsifiable. It's not, because it posits that everything was magically created by a being from whom you can draw no predictions, cannot test, and cannot observe either directly or indirectly. Nothing could EVER disprove the notion that "goddidit." Hence, since Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable at its core, it's an invalid theory. A valid theory is superior to an invalid theory.

However, lots of **** in the Bible can be tested, and a lot of it is total bullshit and wrong, therefore, not even the evidence is correct, so even if it were falsifiable, it's still a shitty explanation. Most of the "creationists" arguments against evolution are are fallacious or strawmen of real evolution, thus they are invalid. THey are, however, just that--arguments against. Creationists or [un]intelligent designers have no valid mechanism or explanation for how anything happens. Ergo, they don't even have a theory.

Intelligent Design is just as good as me saying Whilly Whopdoodle created mankind.

Evolution:

1. Evolution: utilizes a naturalistic mechanism that has not only been observed in nature, but also produces exact, accurate predictions. Since it actually has information that supports predictions, and those explanations coincide with what we see in nature, Evolution is the more parsimonious theory. It does not require (to function), the existence of a magic sky pixi children shouldn't even believe in.

Comparing Evolution and Creationism isn't even a fair fight. Creationism is like sending a retarded monkey to box a mac truck.

And for those who claim that evolution has never been "shown," then you obviously don't understand the concept of speciation very well, nor do you comprehend the definition of Evolution. Those types of people are consistantly guity of shifting goalposts in debate, and they exibit the Wall of Ignorance. You might as well try to convince a solipsist reality exists outside of his mind. It's nigh-impossible. No evidence is good enough for them. When you show them evidence, they dery it as not enough. This concept applied one can see in the "controversy" over transitional species. This is a bullshit argument against evolution, since all species are transitional. Evoultion doesn't have an A or a B. It goes by a gradient. You aren't WEEEE species A and then WEEEE species B as if reality were black and white.

In reality, we see various cases of speciation, which 100% fit the definition of evolution. THere is no mechanistic difference between micro and macro evolution. Anyone who is saying there is is full of ****. They both work off of the same mechanisms, but the latter is compounding.

Evolution defined is: a change in the allele frequency of a given population.



Intelligent Design:

1. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism
 
Last edited:
M14 Shooter said:
"Seems very true".
Please compare and contrast the term "seems very true" to "is true:.
When you do that, you'll see the point of my disagreement with you.


Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?



Just as you cannot prove evolution...

What all this seems to come down to is belief. There are those who define the world through the scientific method, and they will likely gravitate towards the evolutionary explanation of what we are, basing this choice on Data from the scientific community. And, there are those who will define the world based on a more faith based understanding , which will entail either ignoring, or re- interpreting the Data gathered by theoretical science.

The way the scientific method works....one can claim "ALL" information is merely theory, if only because we are constantly revising the data as we discover. To use this aspect of science as a detriment to the way theory functions, just seems to me a rather weak argument as a general rule. One has merely to look at the accumulated Data on evolution, and compare the reams of information to the three paragraphs that define ID, and it becomes somewhat obvious that one can be said to be a more complete, and thus more accurate theory.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well I never argued that it should be taught in a science class did I? I just said there was scientific data that would support a devine creation. I think there should be a religions course in our public schools. That way they are prepared for the wolrd religions class that is needed in your humanities section. Besides it wouldnt hurt having a common knowledge of them. But this is just my opinion.
Just wondering exactly what data, scientific or otherwise, would support divine anything.
 
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Just wondering exactly what data, scientific or otherwise, would support divine anything.

I agree with this, there is none that I know of.
 
Thats the problem with trying to get rid of creationism, everything is "proof" to them cause everything "came from god".
 
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Thats the problem with trying to get rid of creationism, everything is "proof" to them cause everything "came from god".

Well, these Christians and Jews who think that the world was created by thier "God" and then man was made in his image are wrong.

My diety, Comedeao the Almighty, created the universe by accident one day when he was floating around in an abyss and belched, then, he blew his nose, and out of his nose galaxies with planets formed.

Then he decided to create little pawns for his enjoyment, so he scratched his skin with a fingernail and flakes of his dead skin formed into humans.

That is how life on Earth Began.
 
OgdenTG said:
Thats the problem with trying to get rid of creationism, everything is "proof" to them cause everything "came from god".
Yes, the existence of life can be seen as very very weak evidence but not proof.

The existence of life and the earth is also evidence of Caine's idea:
My diety, Comedeao the Almighty, created the universe by accident one day when he was floating around in an abyss and belched, then, he blew his nose, and out of his nose galaxies with planets formed.

Then he decided to create little pawns for his enjoyment, so he scratched his skin with a fingernail and flakes of his dead skin formed into humans.

That is how life on Earth Began

And evidence for the Great Spagetti Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

So it is evidence, although it is very, very weak, and can be evidence for just about anything.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
And evidence for the Great Spagetti Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

So it is evidence, although it is very, very weak, and can be evidence for just about anything.

OMG this is.....amazing!

This no doubt proves it all! The world and man were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!!!!
We should be teaching this in our schools!
 
I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.

So, we're going to stop teaching actual science in school because of conflicting theories of where we came from?

This is absurd, science is science, religion is religion. The goal of teaching evolution in school isn't to tell kids thier bible is wrong, but to show them how we use the scientific process to discover similarities between ourselves and apes, as well as similarities of fossils of other animals and what could have been thier past forms.
 
I would like to bring up bacteria, specificly the ones that cause desease. The cures that we were using 50 or 60 years ago do not work today. Now this implys that the bacteria have changed over time to this new threat on their survival. Now no doubt the ones that could not adapt to the cures we used died off. This leaves only the ones that did adapt to this. Now I think that this is a good example of evolution, granted it did not take millions of years, However in my defense bacteria reproduce at rates much higher then multicelled creatures, like us. This means that many thousands of generations of bacteria have come and gone in a realitive short time.

This is more proof for evolution and is there any intelligent deign proof that measures up to this??
 
Rhadamanthus said:
I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.

:shock:

Yeah why not? Heck maybe we can cut out english, history, math, and reading as well.

Afterall wont Kids figure it out on their own?
 
zk655 said:
:shock:

Yeah why not? Heck maybe we can cut out english, history, math, and reading as well.

Afterall wont Kids figure it out on their own?

:rofl bwuahahahahahahhaah
 
M14 Shooter said:
Evolution is a theory; gravity is a physical law.
Your claim is false. The existence of Evolution is a FACT. It has been directly observed, there is scientific, accurate, specific data sets proving its occurance, just like there is specific data sets proving the existence of Gravity. (The data sets have shown the force relationships to be in constant proportions, hence it is also described as a natural law.)

Now, there is a Scientific Theory of Evolution that explains how all the different factual examples of evolutionary processes all hang together like a mechanism. There is also a Scientific Theory of Gravitational Force that explains how all the observed examples of gravitational effect hangs together in a meaningful cohesiveness.

So your artificial separation of the two scientific concepts is simply false.

Evolution -as- a theory was derived through inductive reasoning, where you take a limited data set, look for patterns within that set, and apply it to the world in general. To subcribe to Evolution as the Way Things Got Here is to have faith that the induction is correct -- that is, you must 'believe'.

Given the evidence supporting evolution so far, you might as well walk into any given classroom in any given school, see what color the chairs are, and then declare that all the chairs in all the classrooms in all the schools follow the same pattern.
Nope. That would be a hypothesis. That would not be a Scientific Theory. It seems that your understanding of the processes involved in the Scientific Method is woefully inadequate. I would suggest you read up on the details of the Scientific Method before making any such remarks about what science is.

After all, your remarks are equally valid or invalid for ALL Scientific Theories. Are you saying they are all wrong or based on false premises? You seem way out of solid foundation here.
Teaching evolution as a theory is fine, but teaching it as fact is not.
The OCCURRENCE of Evolution very much is a fact. But the Scientific Theories never are "fact," ANY of them.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you?
 
M14 Shooter said:
I think I explained that:
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
Therefore it cannot be taught as fact.
But then NO Scientific Theory is a fact ever. So What is your point?

Oh, I get it. You are trying to imply that since a Scientific Theory is never a "fact," the actual occurence of the events that the Scientific Theory explains therefore are also not facts, right?

In that, of course, you are flat-out wrong.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Seems to me, ID explains everything.
Well, it claims that "something happened," that's all. there is no evidence for it, there is no science involved, it is pure speculation, it is creationist wishful thinking presented dishonestly as factual or scientific.
And, its entirely possible that ID happened in such a way that supports evolution.
No.
But the fact of the matter is, Evolution isnt a fact, and teaching it as such in a strong example of intellectual dishonesty.
The OCCURENCE of Evolution very much is a fact. All the data sets are factual.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Evolution doesnt explain that, either.
Genetic/biologic phenomenon stand on their own.
The very process of their change is an example of Evolution. And per the Scientific Theory of Evolution, we can make predictions for when and how changes occur. That's the evidence for the Scientific Theory.

ID can do no such thing.
Whats your point?
If its true - so what?
So, if all structures and changes are created by a designer, then their occurence has no natural presense. When bacteria develope resistence to antibiotics, it is done by a designer, no evolution occured. So we can't prepare and generate new antibiotics to treat the infection. f.ex.

So THAT is what is wrong with your idea that "the creator did it" is a fine answer. This belief in myth rather than observable data, that is the principle that the early greek scientists made their breakthrough from; the idea that it wasn't the Gods that caused the late rain or you getting a swollen, red arm. That natural events occur and that they have natural causes that we can explore and manipulate.

The idea of ID sets us back 3000 years, back to the idea that all can be explained by myth, even when it contradicts direct observation.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?
It is clear that you have no clue about what the Scientific Method is. Science Class is the teaching of applying the Scientific Method. ID can not be evaluated through the Scientific Method. Hence, it is as useful as teaching in math class that 2+2=smurf. It simply has no relevance to the reality
Psst...
Gravity is a physical law, not a theory.{/quote]Psst, our claim is false, you are showing your incredible ignorance of Science.
Just as you cannot prove evolution...
The actual, observed events ofEvolution are very much proven. And the Scientific Theory of Evolution is as "proven" as all other Scientific Theories.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.

Rhadamanthus,

Your comment belies an ignorance of what science is. Scientists don't "believe" things; they try to explain how the universe works without resorting to supernatural explanations, by employing the scientific method, a rigorous epistemological protocol involving the use of logic, reason, hypothesis and experimentation. If a hypothesis, through peer review, observation and experimentation, proves to be inadequate to explain a phenomenon, or just plain wrong, it will either be augmented, or scrapped all together for a new hypothesis, which then is subjected to the same grueling scientific method. This process is repeated over and over again, and is called scientific progress. It's why you're not likely to die of the Plague, and what produced the medium we're communicating on right now.

And evolution through natural selection has been subjected to this process for 150 years, and has passed with flying colors. Evolution is now the cornerstone of, and been verified by, dozens of branches of science.

Religion, on the other hand, is a "belief" and is not the product of a rigorous epistemological process. It's predicated on unquestioned faith, in other words, dogma.

So, to propose that we throw out evolution from the science class simply because some Christians can't reconcile their religious dogma with science is, well, moronic. If you had your way, humanity would still be trying to figure out where fire comes from. No, wait, it comes from God, of course!
 
Last edited:
argexpat said:
Rhadamanthus,

Your comment belies an ignorance of what science is. Scientists don't "believe" things; they try to explain how the universe works without resorting to supernatural explanations, by employing the scientific method, a rigorous epistemological protocol involving the use of logic, reason, hypothesis and experimentation. If a hypothesis, through peer review, observation and experimentation, proves to be inadequate to explain a phenomenon, or just plain wrong, it will either be augmented, or scrapped all together for a new hypothesis, which then is subjected to the same grueling scientific method. This process is repeated over and over again, and is called scientific progress. It's why you're not likely to die of the Plague, and what produced the medium we're communicating on right now.

And evolution through natural selection has been subjected to this process for 150 years, and has passed with flying colors. Evolution is now the cornerstone of, and been verified by, dozens of branches of science.

Religion, on the other hand, is a "belief" and is not the product of a rigorous epistemological process. It's predicated on unquestioned faith, in other words, dogma.

So, to propose that we throw out evolution from the science class simply because some Christians can't reconcile their religious dogma with science is, well, moronic. If you had your way, humanity would still be trying to figure out where fire comes from. No, wait, it comes from God, of course!

I am quite familiar with the scientific method.

observation
Hypothesis
experiment
analyzy data
communicate results

(did I miss any steps.)

I am also a firm believer in evolution. (Key word, believer.) I "believe" that it is a theory with a very firm scientific grounding. However, what I believe is not the question. It is what the chrisitians believe. Chrisitianity is a religion, and like the followers of any religion christians don't have a lot of room within them for conflicting beliefs.

I am beginning to believe that the entire argument of which should be taught in schools is no longer a question of whether people think evolution is true or creationism is true. It has reached the poing where this is all a power struggle betwean science and religion, neither side wanting to concede.
I don't think that it is really about beliefs any more. Though I think you took my comment about removing both from the curriculum a little too seriously. A better way to do things would be to teach them both, personaly however I believe that creationism is a religous tale that was invented to explain human existence and that if a religion wants it taught they should teach it themselves. I was under the impression that church was established for that very reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom