Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?

[Spitfire175]

Because the radical creationists love circular logic, there can not be a serious debate. Just no.
Creationism isn't a valid contender in a debate considering the scientific orgin of life. Evolution has been proven over and over again and there isn't a sigle serious biologist who would say "evolution is bogus". Creationism is religion. The Genesis is a myth, no different from any other religion's explanation for the birth of the world.

Creationists have made up complete nonsense claims about the theory of evolution. Such as "evolution is a religion" or "it cannot be tested" or "carbon dating isn't true". The actual people who study evolution and expand the knowledge we have, haven't even bothered to enter the shouting competition.

 

[Monshroud]

I think part of the problem is people are taught that God created everything and did so intentionally and as part of some grand design. (If memory serves) Evolution says that things have changed over time and we could in theory have things that God did not intend to create. This goes against what many Christian religions believe in that God is infalible. If evolution could be 100% proven that we evolved for instance from Apes that could show that God didn't create man and that he is falible and that could destroy the church.

Also people have a hard time with the concepts that happen over thousands of years. People can't see evolution happen in their lifetime, so it is difficult to grasp the concept.

A good point, however, the entire "evolution disproving God" thing hinges on one point: that we know what God's design was. For all we know, evolution could be God's design, or it might not be, there's no way to know. The Bible says God created everything but it doesn't really say how, or what his plan was after.

That's very true as well. I don't claim to be a religion expert. One of my understandings though is that the Bible says that God created Man. Science is starting to show that Man may have evolved from Apes. If that was proven true, I think that could make the people question the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that Man sprung from some other creaures being. I think that's where some of the friction comes in.

 

[Abengoshis]

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

Actually it has been. My favourite example being the E.Coli that, after 31,000 generations (or thereabouts, I have forgotten the exact number), were able to process citrate!

 

[Abengoshis]

I think part of the problem is people are taught that God created everything and did so intentionally and as part of some grand design. (If memory serves) Evolution says that things have changed over time and we could in theory have things that God did not intend to create. This goes against what many Christian religions believe in that God is infalible. If evolution could be 100% proven that we evolved for instance from Apes that could show that God didn't create man and that he is falible and that could destroy the church.

Also people have a hard time with the concepts that happen over thousands of years. People can't see evolution happen in their lifetime, so it is difficult to grasp the concept.

A good point, however, the entire "evolution disproving God" thing hinges on one point: that we know what God's design was. For all we know, evolution could be God's design, or it might not be, there's no way to know. The Bible says God created everything but it doesn't really say how, or what his plan was after.

That's very true as well. I don't claim to be a religion expert. One of my understandings though is that the Bible says that God created Man. Science is starting to show that Man may have evolved from Apes. If that was proven true, I think that could make the people question the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that Man sprung from some other creaures being. I think that's where some of the friction comes in.

Humans ARE apes, just as ducks ARE birds. No one says "that's not a bird, its a DUCK! do they? Enough evidence has been presented for the evolution of humans that it is hard for anyone (who isn't an idiot/ignorant) to deny.

 

[Veylon]

There's no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Macro is just a lot of micro put end to end. It's just plain evolution.

And "species" is a vague term. There is set of ancestors from you to the apes to the fishes and no generation changed species. When cold turns to hot, it happens gradually and there is no exact point at which it does so. Scientists like to have X different species so they can get the prestige of naming them after themselves, and creationists have seized on this conceit to make up a bunch of fictitious "missing links" and "gaps" between this species and that.

The way I deal with Creationists is not to mock them or disprove them, but run ahead and build up alternate Creationist theories that they then have to debunk before getting to the one they really want. I can speculate on aliens, hidden Creation tools, UFO monitoring, sentient crystals, ad infinitum that the Creationist does not want, but can't easily discard without using the sort of argument that would destroy their own theory. It makes them question themselves sometimes.

 

[Abengoshis]

One more thing, Evolutionary Theory currently has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity!
Physicists really need to catch up. xD

 

[Abengoshis]

The way I deal with Creationists is not to mock them or disprove them, but run ahead and build up alternate Creationist theories that they then have to debunk before getting to the one they really want. I can speculate on aliens, hidden Creation tools, UFO monitoring, sentient crystals, ad infinitum that the Creationist does not want, but can't easily discard without using the sort of argument that would destroy their own theory. It makes them question themselves sometimes.

Hey, I do that too!

 

[t_rexaur]

That's very true as well. I don't claim to be a religion expert. One of my understandings though is that the Bible says that God created Man. Science is starting to show that Man may have evolved from Apes. If that was proven true, I think that could make the people question the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that Man sprung from some other creaures being. I think that's where some of the friction comes in.

Except Humans didn't evolve from Apes. Both Humans and Apes share a common ancestor, the "missing link" that is akin to the holy grail of the theory of evolution.

It's true the bible doesn't say "Then God made this creature evolve into man", but even just saying "God created man" is completely ambiguous. How did God do it? It's true that Evolution could disprove the theory that God just willed Man into existence, but it cannot disprove that God, or indeed some creator, had a hand in our creation. Evolution only tells us how, it doesn't tell us why. Why has life evolved as it has? Was it really all random chance or are we just part of a grand design?

 

[Semitendon]

I find evolution to be very logical and (at least in its basics) to be very simple.

...it's evidence ( or lack thereof) is contadictory at best, and at worst blatantly refutes it own premise.

May I ask what evidence you're refering to?

I don't have access to all my books and data at the moment.

But, going from memory, ( which I apologize as it may be inaccurate in the specifics)

The sun is constantly burning down, at a rate of somewhere around an inch or so every thousand years. At that rate, reversing the process, results in the sun being so large that the earth would not have been able to sustain any life at the time frames that are vitally important to evolution.

The astronauts that landed on the moon were prepared for a considerable layer of "space dust" having accumulated in the billions of years since it's creation, however, when they landed the actual "space dust" on the moon was consistent with the earth being around 20-30 thousand years old.

This isn't all of the points I have, and again, I don't have access to some of the more detailed ( animal) evolutionary problems.

Essentially though, every time a new "missing link" has been found, it lasts about 10-20 years, before someone figures out that it was actually a monkey bone, or piece of some ancient human, and wasn't actually a "missing link" at all. No complete skeletons have EVER been found of a missing animal link. All the drawing and pictures we have seen have been based on one of two things. Either the imagination of an artist, or a piece of bone which is usually very small in size. With the bone, there is never any DNA evidence to back up the claim that it is a newly disovered piece, it is usually comparable to another animal but is not considered to be that animal because of the bone's size, which is not evidence that it is actually different from that animal, only that the creatures were different in size.

Ultimately, I find that the majority of scientist's find a fossil, and immediately ask themselves, "how can I make this fit into the current evolutionary theory". Which is not science, or free-thinking, but rather an attempt to stay popular among his or her peers.

One of my favorite "pro" evolution studies I have seen, is one in which a scientist has suggested evolution took place at a much faster rate then is currently thought. Something to do with beetles, I think. That study actually seemed more reasonable to me, as it could explain more than the current theory can. But so far, that scientist ( who does not believe in God, and is not a creatonist) has been written off as amusing, and maybe interesting theories, but not currently valid. Seems like a popularity contest to me, true science always shakes the foundations of what we believe, it makes us discover new things and ideas, but when it turns into " you must be crazy, or wrong, unless you believe what everyone else does" it fails to impress or validate.

 

[Bigeyez]

Evolution and Creationism ca co-exist.

The Vatican itself accepts evolution so the two can indeed co-exist. It's just you have vocal minorities whomake it look like they speak for everyone when the don't.

 

[Semitendon]

The way I deal with Creationists is not to mock them or disprove them, but run ahead and build up alternate Creationist theories that they then have to debunk before getting to the one they really want. I can speculate on aliens, hidden Creation tools, UFO monitoring, sentient crystals, ad infinitum that the Creationist does not want, but can't easily discard without using the sort of argument that would destroy their own theory. It makes them question themselves sometimes.

Actually, I would accept aliens, the great spirit, "sentient crystals", or anything else you want to add that explains existence, rather than the theory of evolution.

I don't exactly know what "sentient crystals" or "hidden Creation tools" are, but assuming they are based on an intelligence creating the world, I would gladly accept them over the current theory of evolution.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Are there really scientists having debates against Creationists?

no they don't, it's creationists trying to debate and give the most stupid arguments to "prove" their points, such as the banana argument, the foot prints in the sand and a couple others.

there is a 2 hour NOVA episode about a court case, well it's a recreation of the court case where they tried to force intelligent design into a school. the best part is where the intelligent design "scientist" said "there's no evidence to support a feature of bacteria being a natural growth", the other attorney piled about 20 books on said bacteria in front of him

the funnier part about the case was the judge was a very strong Christian and didn't fully believe in evolution and still found in favor of the evolution people that intelligent design was religious

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.

actually there's a couple quotes in the bible that say that the first 6 "days" are just periods in time and it was a way to describe what happened before we got here, the funny part is it mostly jives with what science says happened

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.

no no it's not, also there is good evidence of it, there was a fish that was found in Africa. they noticed that a new fish popped up in the lake and the other fish was dying off, however science proved that the new fish was actually the other fish but it had just evolved

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/

also a "macro evolution" as you call it doesn't happen. all changes happen gradually over a long period of time and several mutations usually happen at once and the best suited one wins out

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't have access to all my books and data at the moment.

But, going from memory, ( which I apologize as it may be inaccurate in the specifics)

The sun is constantly burning down, at a rate of somewhere around an inch or so every thousand years. At that rate, reversing the process, results in the sun being so large that the earth would not have been able to sustain any life at the time frames that are vitally important to evolution.

that's assuming the diameter of a star decreases at a constant rate throughout its lifecycle, which we <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution>know isn't the case.

The astronauts that landed on the moon were prepared for a considerable layer of "space dust" having accumulated in the billions of years since it's creation, however, when they landed the actual "space dust" on the moon was consistent with the earth being around 20-30 thousand years old.

Why would dust on the moon indicate anything about the age of the earth? They need not have formed at the same time, and in fact that dust supports the leading scientific theory on the formation of the moon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

then again, since you seem to be not only arguing against Darwinian evolution but all of astrophysics, i'm not sure how convincing all this will be for you.

 

[Thaius]

It should be more serious than it is, really. Evolution is more widely accepted than it should be, considering it's taught as fact when it's really just a theory: an unproven and rather shaky theory if you look at the facts. Even a lot of scientists think so, but most people have put too much faith into it and won't accept that. And...

yeah, a Theory just like the Theory of Relativity, and just like Evolution, both have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be considered fact. But "fact of evolution" is grammatically incorrect.

What you fail to realise is the layman use of the work "theory" thinks that once it is proven it turns from a theory into a fact. I t is also completely different from the proper scientific use of the word 'theory'.

But in science, even once a theory is proven it is still called a 'theory' or a 'proven theory' which is considered a fact.

The word you are looking for is 'hypothesis', a theory that has not even been attempt to be proven yet.

And Evolution through Natural Selection (it's full name) is universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in all the fields relating to the origin of life.

And classrooms are not supposed to just read from a book and say "this is how it happened, now shut up", it goes through all the evidence and analysis to show that the current theory of Evolution is definitely true.

I mean the genetic evidence alone is indisputable.

There is a decent amount of evidence, yes. But not enough evidence to prove it: only to support it. And evolution is defeated when logic is brought into the equation: there are some simple things that simply would not have happened through this process. Evolution is an impossible theory created and supported by people who simply want an explanation that doesn't point to an authoritative creator. People want to believe there is no God, so they develop things like evolution to try and explain how things can exist without him.

Interesting how people accuse religion of just being a desperate way to explain the universe, but evolution isn't too far off from that itself...

I believe that God created everything. I believe that Evolution does not have enough evidence to support it's claims, it is an illogical system designed to explain existence.

One of the biggest reasons I believe in God, is the theory of evolution. While evolution is a fantastically well thought out system, it's evidence ( or lack thereof) is contradictory at best, and at worst blatantly refutes it own premise.

In that way, I cannot accept evolution as a valid argument for the existence of anything, and ultimately must turn to the only other explanation for existence. . . God. Since the intelligent design theory holds significantly more valid arguments for existence, I am bound to follow it as the only logical conclusion.

As I have said before, Evolution turned me into a Christian.

Consider this statement seconded.

 

[Veylon]

I don't have access to all my books and data at the moment.

But, going from memory, ( which I apologize as it may be inaccurate in the specifics)

The sun is constantly burning down, at a rate of somewhere around an inch or so every thousand years. At that rate, reversing the process, results in the sun being so large that the earth would not have been able to sustain any life at the time frames that are vitally important to evolution.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Talk to an astrophysicist.

But 1 inch per thousand years = 6,000,000 inches in six billion years = 500,000 feet = 95 miles. The sun now is 865,370 miles, so a mere 95 is a trifling difference, less than 0.01%.

The astronauts that landed on the moon were prepared for a considerable layer of "space dust" having accumulated in the billions of years since it's creation, however, when they landed the actual "space dust" on the moon was consistent with the earth being around 20-30 thousand years old.

Consistent how? Why would a particular amount of dust require a certain amount of time? Remember that meteors keep hitting the thing and blasting dust away. Also, it varies from place to place on the moon.

This isn't all of the points I have, and again, I don't have access to some of the more detailed ( animal) evolutionary problems.

Essentially though, every time a new "missing link" has been found, it lasts about 10-20 years, before someone figures out that it was actually a monkey bone, or piece of some ancient human, and wasn't actually a "missing link" at all. No complete skeletons have EVER been found of a missing animal link. All the drawing and pictures we have seen have been based on one of two things. Either the imagination of an artist, or a piece of bone which is usually very small in size. With the bone, there is never any DNA evidence to back up the claim that it is a newly disovered piece, it is usually comparable to another animal but is not considered to be that animal because of the bone's size, which is not evidence that it is actually different from that animal, only that the creatures were different in size.

Again with the missing links! It's like if I had snapshots of a building collapsing and someone complained that it didn't happen because I don't have records of what happened in between the frames. The DNA evidence in the bones is unnecessary; the DNA in living specimens is what counts. For instance, we share 99.5% (or thereabouts) of our DNA with monkeys, so we are closely related. If we had completely different DNA from monkeys or fish or birds, that would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Ultimately, I find that the majority of scientist's find a fossil, and immediately ask themselves, "how can I make this fit into the current evolutionary theory". Which is not science, or free-thinking, but rather an attempt to stay popular among his or her peers.

True enough, but even worse is that scientists have a strong bias towards making every fossil a new species, thus giving them the right to name it and get prestige. The biggest prestige, however, is to take down a major theory. The big names in science (Einstein, Newton, Copernicus) are those who demolish old theories and replace them with a new paradigm. Somehow disproving evolution once and for all would make a scientist famous and important beyond all measure.

One of my favorite "pro" evolution studies I have seen, is one in which a scientist has suggested evolution took place at a much faster rate then is currently thought. Something to do with beetles, I think. That study actually seemed more reasonable to me, as it could explain more than the current theory can. But so far, that scientist ( who does not believe in God, and is not a creatonist) has been written off as amusing, and maybe interesting theories, but not currently valid. Seems like a popularity contest to me, true science always shakes the foundations of what we believe, it makes us discover new things and ideas, but when it turns into " you must be crazy, or wrong, unless you believe what everyone else does" it fails to impress or validate.

Theories are always being improved and built upon all the time. Scientists can be as hidebound as anyone, after all Plate Tectonics didn't take hold until the older generation died off. People cling to the beliefs that they've invested their egos into, scientists and non-scientists alike.

 

[cobra_ky]

There is a decent amount of evidence, yes. But not enough evidence to prove it: only to support it. And evolution is defeated when logic is brought into the equation: there are some simple things that simply would not have happened through this process.

such as?

 

[Pingieking]

One more thing, Evolutionary Theory currently has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity!
Physicists really need to catch up. xD

But the theory of gravity is so good that there's no way to refute it, so padding more evidence on top of the piles that's already there is kind of a waste of money. Physicists are more interested in pushing the edge of gravity (very small, light stuff) to see how it matches with quamtum mechanics (another theory that has way too much evidence).

@Treblaine: Cross discipline science can and do occur. Biophysics, geophysics, and material sciences (chemical physics or physical chemistry) are all cross discipline science. However, I do agree that religion and science doesn't mix. Simply because they are fundamentally incompatible. Science asks questions related to the physical world and attempt to answer them. Religion asks questions and then proceeds to ignore the physical world and provide answers with no basis in reality).

@Semitendon: You don't seem to know what evolution is. Evolution is a perfectly logical theory with plenty of evidence that doesn't try to explain the existence of everything. The whole point of evolution is to explain how organisms arise from other organisms, and how the environment plays a role in shaping that. Notice how that that the theory already assumes that organisms exist? Evolution doesn't try to say that something (let's called it A) comes from nothing, it says that A comes from something else (lets call this thing B) and that the conditions that B lived in plays a role in the characteristics of A.

Evolution doesn't disprove the idea of god. It only disproves certain parts of the bible. There are other theories that combined with evolution disprove God (capital G, meaning the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, also referring to fundimental views of God), but no theory can disprove the possibility of the existence of supreme beings. So far science has only whittled down what god can do and could have done (which is surprizing little, actually) but it hasn't (and isn't trying to, at least the mainstream) disprove the existence of supreme beings.

I find the "debate" hilarious. One of the fundamental parts of any scientific theory is the ability to use the theory to predict things, and creationism can't predict anything at all (same reason that string theory isn't accepted yet, since we don't have the equipment to test anything that the string theory predicts). Therefore, from that fact alone, creationism is eliminated as a scientific theory, because it makes incorrect predictions. Evolution doesn't give direct predictions very often (much like quantum mechanics), but the predictions that it gives are correct and it has not produced any wrong predictions.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I would sum up the difference in one very simple explanation of inductive and deductive logic.

Creationism starts with a hypothesis (the world is created by a supernatural architect.)
They begin looking for evidence that supports this postulation.
Once they have a large amount of evidence, they say, "Look at all this evidence! This must be true!

Scientists look at a large amount of phenomena and try to understand what it means,
IE the diversity of animals, or, per my field of study, the propensity of humans to alienate others for their differences creating 'in' groups, and 'out' groups.
They decide that these things are worth studying and formulate a hypothesis based on their measurable experiences.
They then subject this hypothesis to tests to see if it is true or not.
If they find that their hypothesis is flawed or disproven they discard the hypothesis; something that creationists cannot do.
This brings up the next important point of the scientific method, and that is, all hypothesis must include the ability to be disproven. If you invoke god inside your hypothesis, it is very unlikely that it can be disproven.
If one fails to disprove a hypothesis enough times it eventually takes root within the scientific community and creates a new direction for scientists to focus their efforts.

Creationists start with what they want to believe, then try to prove themselves right.

Scientists start with questions about reality, then once they have a hypothesis, try to prove themselves wrong.