Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?

[heyheysg]

Or is it just an internet thing or the 'wedge' strategy where no one in the scientific community is seriously discussing it but just misinformation spread to the public that it is?

Are there really scientists having debates against Creationists?

I have this idea that creationists hold large debates and invite scientists to debate which one is right (kinda defeats the scientific method though). And that a large number of the population support creationism.

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

 

[Superior Mind]

I don't understand why Creationists keep thinking up new and increasingly silly stories to justify themselves, (I did love the "look at the banana argumet" for Intelligent Design though.) Charles Darwin gave a perfectly plausable theory that incorporate Creationism when he wrote "Origin". Darwin didn't even say that God didn't exist or anything, he simply stated that God could have, (instead of creating everything as they are today as Creationist theory dictates,) created things in their simplest unevolved form and then created a rule - Natural Selection - to govern them so they would turn out as He intended. Kind of like someone creating a macro to get some mindlessly repeditive task done quicker on a computer.

Evolution and Creationism ca co-exist. Just because it's not written that way in the Bible doesn't mean people can accept Evolution and God. The Bible was written by people and has changed throughout history anyway.

 

[Jaywebbs]

In regards to actual debates I have yet to see or hear of one, Basically its the whole Church against science thing again, people want to take a thousand year old book literally and will believe a couple lines of text more then large amounts of evidence.

 

[Proteus214]

Unfortunately the debate has been going on for quite some time and still continues to influence educational policies. Their strategy is to basically deny intellectual discussion and keep everything rooted within the basis of Christian faith. Their methods assume that the Bible is correct, word for word, while the scientific method only relies on the assumptions on what has been observed. It's really sad that this kind of debate continues to be a hot button issue.

 

[Lorok]

Well the scientific method doesn't actually apply to evolution, since evolution can't be tested in a controlled environment.

 

[Spacelord]

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

The day they offer the possibility of casting Magic Missile is the day I'm converting.

 

[DannyBoy451]

Well the scientific method doesn't actually apply to evolution, since evolution can't be tested in a controlled environment.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that evolution has been observed in a lab using yeast.

 

[heyheysg]

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

The day they offer the possibility of casting Magic Missile is the day I'm converting.

You would be a cleric then, mostly healing spells and such.

Well the scientific method doesn't actually apply to evolution, since evolution can't be tested in a controlled environment.

You obviously do not understand what Scientific Method means.

 

[Lorok]

Micro evolution, the yeast has never changed species.

 

[Lorok]

No I'm sure, it's been a while, but I know the steps of the scientific method.

 

[DannyBoy451]

Micro evolution, the yeast has never changed species.

I'm also pretty sure that the principal is the same.

No I'm sure, it's been a while, but I know the steps of the scientific method.

Better than an evolutionary biologist, obviously.

 

[TikiShades]

We've reverse engineered a chicken to be more like a dinosaur. It's pretty obvious that evolution is as much of a fact as it's going to get, co-existing or not with creationism.

 

[DannyBoy451]

Turns out the example I was thinking of was E.coli, my bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[Adam]

The sooner Religion stops meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

 

[Wilbot666]

No, no carbon dating is a myth! Humanity really did originate 4.5 thousand years ago! [sarcasm]

 

[Lorok]

The sooner Religion stop meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

Oh god that's not going to happen, the mere fact that you say it like that disproves your own point. You're not being free-thinking, you're being intolerant of another belief besides your own.

Whenever a majority has complete control, free-thinking goes down the drain, even if the majority considers itself 'free thinking.' That's just what happens.

And I didn't look at the e. coli thing yet, but no, micro and macro evolution are different. Micro evolution are smaller scale changes within a single species, while macro evolution is the actual shift from one species to another.

 

[Chipperz]

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

The day they offer the possibility of casting Magic Missile is the day I'm converting.

You would be a cleric then, mostly healing spells and such.

Dude, Magic Missile? That's, like, the Wizard's staple spell until about level 20,000. That and Ray of Enfeeblement, which remains one of the greatest spells in the game to this day.

I've NEVER understood why people can't take "evolution" and "God did it" in the same sentence. It's a great comprimise, and it's what most christians actually believe. Hell, even my last priest taught that the creation story was a parable that was meant to be taken in the context of millions of years (and with poetic licence).

 

[Flour]

Well the scientific method doesn't actually apply to evolution, since evolution can't be tested in a controlled environment.

Actually, im pretty sure that evolution has been observed in a lab using yeast.

It could have been done with yeast, but I remember this article about E.coli [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html]
I also remember that on the website I got that link from originally, there was a single creationist who claimed that it wasn't 'real evolution'.

Are there really scientists having debates against Creationists?

I have this idea that creationists hold large debates and invite scientists to debate which one is right (kinda defeats the scientific method though). And that a large number of the population support creationism.

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

From what I remember(it's been years since I've actually read anything about this), the debate is currently 'continued' in schools.

Even if they disprove evolution(highly unlikely), scientists will come with a new theory because creationists don't have one.

 

[DannyBoy451]

The sooner Religion stop meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

Oh god that's not going to happen, the mere fact that you say it like that disproves your own point. You're not being free-thinking, you're being intolerant of another belief besides your own.

Whenever a majority has complete control, free-thinking goes down the drain, even if the majority considers itself 'free thinking.' That's just what happens.

And I didn't look at the e. coli thing yet, but no, micro and macro evolution are different. Micro evolution are smaller scale changes within a single species, while macro evolution is the actual shift from one species to another.

If you want evidence of macroevolution, then there's a wonderful fossil record and decades of research that you can look at.

But yeah, any debate here is pointless, if you're dead set on being wilfully ignorant then that's fine with me.

It's just depressing that you see evolution as disproving the existence of God.

 

[Skeleon]

I don't know whether there are actual debates but I know that many, many, far too many people in the US perceive Creationism as either a valid alternative (without any evidence - remember, bananas weren't the shape they are today before we started changing them) or even the only truth. This view is far less prevalent in other Western countries, though. I can think of only one couple I know personally that doesn't agree with evolution in one way or the other (most people I know see it purely scientifically like I do, some see it as how god/gods formed life).