• 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!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

  • Total voters
    60
Objective Voice said:
I think there's room for science and religious theology. Consider the following:

Biblical scripture teaches that God created man from the dust. Science teaches that this planet was formed from the collection of space debris colliding together and over time molding itself into this big blue ball, that is was once such the collision occurred that carried with it the building blocks - DNA - for life to form on Earth. Until then, science teaches that this planetoid was nothing more than a large piece of hot space junk. The question then becomes how did that single cell organism develop into the countless species of plant and animal life we know today?

Answer: It evolved...adapted to its surroundings, changing over time. We're still seeing these such changes all around us everyday. They're subtle, i.e., setiments in water as it flows through rivers and streams being deposited in areas where they normally wouldn't have decades or hundreds if not thousands of years before. The Earth's crust shifting, volcanos erupting casting off the primortial soup was call lava which science has shown does reconstitute life.

It's a cycle, one man can't fully understand in all its detail, but we are learning. We are evolving...every day. But the two answers we may never know are "why" and "how"? Why create man here on this planet were this lifeform (to our knowledge atleast) does not exist elsewhere? And how did we presumably go from what science says is a being from the water to a two-legged creature that walks upright that happens to have a higher plain of deductive reasoning than our nearest primate relative?

For what it's worth, I just accept it for what it is, count my blessings that I was born human and not an ant or spider and move on. But I thank God for wisemen who are daring enough to challenge what they don't know and are brave enough to seek out answers that stand to benefit all of mankind.
Click to expand...

Objective, I read your post and I simply can't understand how you could possibly argue that one can reconcile biblical scripture with modern science or have them in the same room. Biblical scripture and by extention, religion is a response to man's ignorance of the world. Not his knowledge. Religion has been evolving from the day it was created. We went from believing in the power of elements such as fire, earth, wind etc to molding these into single omnipotent beings. These beings are not only capable of speaking the language of whomever it's refering to but also intervenes in the favor of the people writing the story. God, Gods, elements and whatever other belief one might have are an explanation for what one can't understand. Your post seems like an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I'm just not convinced by your argument.
 
Ikari said:
Biology is not meaningless in a debate about evolution. Evolution is in fact a theory of biology, and thus biology always has weight in the issue. People may want to politicize it, but those are deflections and thus not actually arguments about evolution itself. Biology is very important to the basis of the argument and if one ever wants to intelligently debate evolution, then biology must necessarily be there. I for one don't understand why there is such large resistance to evolution theory. It's the theory which best explains the observables. Hell at base evolution means to change, and we know things have changed. What existed in the past does not exist now and vice versa.

I do fear that there is an undercurrent of anti-science, anti-intellectualism which is starting to spread across the US. This sort of willful ignorance is not a good thing. Humans never got anywhere by stagnation, we too must evolve.
Click to expand...

Well said, especially the last part. It seems like the U.S. is having its own minor Reformation happening that is challening rationality. I don't think it's just the fringes anymore, it's getting more widespread.
 
Hatuey said:
Objective, I read your post and I simply can't understand how you could possibly argue that one can reconcile biblical scripture with modern science or have them in the same room. Biblical scripture and by extention, religion is a response to man's ignorance of the world. Not his knowledge. Religion has been evolving from the day it was created. We went from believing in the power of elements such as fire, earth, wind etc to molding these into single omnipotent beings. These beings are not only capable of speaking the language of whomever it's refering to but also intervenes in the favor of the people writing the story. God, Gods, elements and whatever other belief one might have are an explanation for what one can't understand. Your post seems like an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I'm just not convinced by your argument.
Click to expand...

Let me try to elaborate...

Scripture (Book of Genesis) attempts to "marginalize" creationism. In it's most basic terms, it says a powerful spirit being - God (Jehovah...Yahway, whatever you prefer to affix to Him, if any) said "let it be so" and "IT" was...whatever "IT" is...light, darkness, water, earth (soil), air, animals, insects, plants, trees, man. Except for how life was breath into man's lungs through his nostrils, the Bible doesn't outline how all this happened...just says God made it so and, thus, it happened.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is an absolute where creationism is concerned. I'm merely saying that the abstract of man's creation - that he came from the dust - can be supported by the science. And the science says that the building blocks of life began with one cellestial collision that contained the proper elements to form life itself. Scripture just explains it in the abstract. It doesn't say, for example, how man lived, how he adapted to his living environment. Yet, that seems to be the argument you'd like for me to make. Science has already provided numerous examples as to how man lived and ultimately survived in some of the harshest environments on Earth. So, that's not an argument I'm willing to rehash here. Just go to a museum and see such evidence for yourself. But where the theology seems to part with the science or even conflict on the issue of creationism -vs- evolution, I say there's plenty of room for both. Scripture merely attempts to explain things in a format man can understand. Unfortunately, the details...how it all began...I think science, man's knowledge, will never be that complete. But we can get damned close. Beyond that, the arguments become too irrational. Hence, the focus of this poll...the "hows" and "whys"...man may never know the answers. But I appreciate wise men seeking answers for which I am not gifted enough to reach conclusions to myself.

Sidenote: I think most men view scripture incorrectly. My take: The Bible isn't necessarily cookie-cutter one world view. It would be great if the world did treat each other with common decency that much of biblical scripture espouses. Unfortunately...

Yes, religions divide man. I won't argue that. But, IMO, I see the Bible as merely a guide book to teach man lessons of life, individual responsibilities, human behavioral patterns that if ignored we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes men before us have made, and on how to be kind and charitable towards one another especially to those who are less fortunate. Doesn't mean you give to everyone who has his hand out. For some are lazy and only wish to take advantage of one's kindness and generosity. But overall, we are to love one another. We're all part of the human element. But I'll save that for another debate. Bottom line here is IMO if you're looking at the Bible as an absolute, I'd say you've missed the mark. But until that day when I come face-to-face with my Makers (if such a God truly exist; I choose to believe there is something out there more powerful than myself), then I hope to be afforded the opportunity to ask these and many such questions. Until then, I choose to put my faith in this good Book of Spiritual Enlightenment and try as best I can to live my life conforming to the standards it setforth as best I can. I fall short at times, but part of repentance is realizing your shortcomings and trying not to repeat them again and again.

We exist, We adapt, we evol...
 
Last edited:
It is between zealots of any religion and people (scientists or not) who have any kind of real grasp of what evolution is.

Are questions about aspects of evolution unanswered? Yes, but this should not put it at odds with religion or one's faith.
 
I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science. What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
 
Last edited:
Walter said:
I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science. What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
Click to expand...

You know what I see? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Read a book before you open your mouth.
 
Walter said:
I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science.
Click to expand...
There is no consensus on abiogenesis amongst scientists. I've already told you this.


From the link I gave you: CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis

Claim CB090:
Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.

Source:
Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals. Evolution - November 1998: Re: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals.

Response:
1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.




Walter said:
What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
Click to expand...

Which of the many theories on abiogenesis are you referring to. If you have actually read a specific theory then please link us to the paper or research.
 
Objective Voice said:
Let me try to elaborate...

Scripture (Book of Genesis) attempts to "marginalize" creationism. In it's most basic terms, it says a powerful spirit being - God (Jehovah...Yahway, whatever you prefer to affix to Him, if any) said "let it be so" and "IT" was...whatever "IT" is...light, darkness, water, earth (soil), air, animals, insects, plants, trees, man. Except for how life was breath into man's lungs through his nostrils, the Bible doesn't outline how all this happened...just says God made it so and, thus, it happened.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is an absolute where creationism is concerned. I'm merely saying that the abstract of man's creation - that he came from the dust - can be supported by the science. And the science says that the building blocks of life began with one cellestial collision that contained the proper elements to form life itself. Scripture just explains it in the abstract. It doesn't say, for example, how man lived, how he adapted to his living environment. Yet, that seems to be the argument you'd like for me to make. Science has already provided numerous examples as to how man lived and ultimately survived in some of the harshest environments on Earth. So, that's not an argument I'm willing to rehash here. Just go to a museum and see such evidence for yourself. But where the theology seems to part with the science or even conflict on the issue of creationism -vs- evolution, I say there's plenty of room for both. Scripture merely attempts to explain things in a format man can understand. Unfortunately, the details...how it all began...I think science, man's knowledge, will never be that complete. But we can get damned close. Beyond that, the arguments become too irrational. Hence, the focus of this poll...the "hows" and "whys"...man may never know the answers. But I appreciate wise men seeking answers for which I am not gifted enough to reach conclusions to myself.

Sidenote: I think most men view scripture incorrectly. My take: The Bible isn't necessarily cookie-cutter one world view. It would be great if the world did treat each other with common decency that much of biblical scripture espouses. Unfortunately...

Yes, religions divide man. I won't argue that. But, IMO, I see the Bible as merely a guide book to teach man lessons of life, individual responsibilities, human behavioral patterns that if ignored we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes men before us have made, and on how to be kind and charitable towards one another especially to those who are less fortunate. Doesn't mean you give to everyone who has his hand out. For some are lazy and only wish to take advantage of one's kindness and generosity. But overall, we are to love one another. We're all part of the human element. But I'll save that for another debate. Bottom line here is IMO if you're looking at the Bible as an absolute, I'd say you've missed the mark. But until that day when I come face-to-face with my Makers (if such a God truly exist; I choose to believe there is something out there more powerful than myself), then I hope to be afforded the opportunity to ask these and many such questions. Until then, I choose to put my faith in this good Book of Spiritual Enlightenment and try as best I can to live my life conforming to the standards it setforth as best I can. I fall short at times, but part of repentance is realizing your shortcomings and trying not to repeat them again and again.

We exist, We adapt, we evol...
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying religion is irreconcilable with modern science because it was thought up by people who had little knowledge of the world around them outside of their own interactions with members of their communities. Reconciling the claims made in Bible texts with modern study of evolution would be like reconciling the nuclear physics with the Mayan gods. There's simply no logic to it. You wouldn't take the astronomy known in the 14th century BC and reconcile it with modern astronomy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim that Anubis is the God who pulls the sun every morning. You wouldn't try to reconcile the belief that Zeus throws down thunderbolts with meteorology. So why do you do this with the Christian god and evolution?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying religion is irreconcilable with modern science because it was thought up by people who had little knowledge of the world around them outside of their own interactions with members of their communities. Reconciling the claims made in Bible texts with modern study of evolution would be like reconciling the nuclear physics with the Mayan gods. There's simply no logic to it. You wouldn't take the astronomy known in the 14th century BC and reconcile it with modern astronomy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim that Anubis is the God who pulls the sun every morning. You wouldn't try to reconcile the belief that Zeus throws down thunderbolts with meteorology. So why do you do this with the Christian god and evolution?
Click to expand...

Really? I don't understand why you would say that.

Lets just say (for the sake of argument) God did talk to ancient man through his dreams etc. Now we know from scripture mans hand in writing his observations etc were not controlled directly by God. So if an ancient man was trying to get across the concept of space, water would be a good metaphor etc. I am just using the Christian Bible as I know it best, but this could apply to many other holy books.

Our observations are better and we have the language and understanding to express difficult concepts better than a man 2000 years ago.

Ancient people speaking figuratively and substituting items and concepts that language of the time could not express is just one of the ways we better understand ancient writings and the thoughts behind them. This goes for holy books of the time without exception. Not everything in them was meant to be taken literally. The story of the flood for instance. I think it was a localized event (but I could be wrong) but for the people writing it, it was their whole world, so they wrote it from that perspective. This is partly why we see many story's of the flood around the world. Many localized events that encompassed writer or story tellers whole world at the time.

In the end no reconciliation is necessary because the physical and metaphysical don't need to reconcile. One is a matter of faith, the other a matter of the preponderance of the evidence. One does not necessarily contradict the other.
 
Last edited:
I said "yes" but it makes more sense if it was changed from "the religious" to "religion". It is not necessarily the religious, as many have pointed out, that are willfully ignorant to facts (and museums apparently). However, it is the establishment of religion (take the Mormon and Catholic churches for instance) that are constantly fighting science and progress every step of the way!
 
Walter said:
I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science. What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
Click to expand...

creationists_la_la_la.png
 
spud_meister said:
:lol: Redress simply meant it's those that are informed v. those that aren't, or are wilfully ignorant, though it's funny to see that you automatically assumed she was calling religious people ignorant.
Click to expand...

But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
 
Ikari said:
You know what I see? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Read a book before you open your mouth.
Click to expand...

But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.
 
obvious Child said:
But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact. It has not changed my view or rocked the foundations of my faith. Now details about certain aspects of evolution are questionable, but in the end for the most part it is supported by good evidence.

Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
Click to expand...

So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh
 
Blackdog said:
So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh
Click to expand...

I've often used the stupid person equation in life.
Whenever anyone tells me what the average human does in whatever, I always think, well, a good half of those are pretty dam stupid, so....
 
Moderator's Warning:
If you wish to contribute to the thread, even with sarcasm and negativity towards Creationists and their arguments, that's perfectly fine. Making posts that are nothing but baiting pictures is not.
 
Right off hand, I would say that intelligence comes into play when it comes to understanding allegory. An intelligent person of faith understands that creation stories are allegorical rather than literal, and so do not reject science when it comes to the way science reveals the workings of their God. Unintelligent people do not.

The tendency towards dogmatic belief is certainly not limited to people of faith, either, as various forms of political dogmatism are prevalent across the political spectrum.

I'd say that the real schism isn't between science and religion or between intelligence and lack thereof, but between dogmatism and the ability to think with an open mind.
 
iamitter said:
I've often used the stupid person equation in life.
Whenever anyone tells me what the average human does in whatever, I always think, well, a good half of those are pretty dam stupid, so....
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but he is basically saying anyone who is a creationist is stupid. Some very intelligent people who are creationist for whatever reason can not be judged as stupid based on that belief alone.
 
obvious Child said:
But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
Click to expand...

Some nonreligious people are too. Being religious or not is irrelevant.
 
Blackdog said:
I don't disagree, but he is basically saying anyone who is a creationist is stupid. Some very intelligent people who are creationist for whatever reason can not be judged as stupid based on that belief alone.
Click to expand...

Completely true. I know a brilliant physicist who graduated summa cum laude from harvard but is a jehovahs witness and believes the world is 6000 years old.
 
iamitter said:
Completely true. I know a brilliant physicist who graduated summa cum laude from harvard but is a jehovahs witness and believes the world is 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

You can believe the moon is made of green cheese as long as you don't profess to be an astrophysicist. Even creationists acknowledge evolution sufficient to the purposes of all but the most specialized fields.
 
iamitter said:
Completely true. I know a brilliant physicist who graduated summa cum laude from harvard but is a jehovahs witness and believes the world is 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize. Your physicist friend may be brilliant in his physics, but in his religious views, he certainly isn't.
 
Cephus said:
Which is irrelevant. Humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize. Your physicist friend may be brilliant in his physics, but in his religious views, he certainly isn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.

He's different in religion, he refuses to look at anything but the Bible, which is a little closeminded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom