• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.
 
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
 
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.

My sister, her husband - my Dad, my ex - and many others - believe God got things started and that included the evolutionary process.
 
I don't think so, because you can be religious but still acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution. I think Redress hit the nail on the head, its educated vs. ignorant.
 
That's trolling.

: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.
 
The scientific community is a bit of a misnomer. There isn’t one on this issue, but many. And they aren’t much of a community when compared to Christians or Jews. What sets scientists and some others apart is their thought process. And some can be selective as to what they apply the scientific thought process to. They can exclude evolution form the application of their thought process they apply to other things, thus believe in creation.

Then there is the confusion that many scientists believe in evolution. That is like saying a scientist believes that 2 plus 2 is 4. (Please, don’t comment that in base 3 it’s not.) Most of us know that 2 plus 2 is 4. We can prove it ourselves, and it can be proven in a rigorous way that takes hundreds of pages.

Since you don’t need to be a scientist to use the scientific method, anyone can duplicate one the many experiments that prove that evolution is what got us to be what we are in all our variants. The same can be done to show that the earth orbits the sun not the other way around.

Also, few religions don’t appear to me to have an issue with evolution. So you can draw a general line “between scientists and the religious” but it would not be accurate enough to satisfy a scientist. In fact the line may cause you to miss a root cause; it’s how we think differently. Lower than that is why do we think differently?
 
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
Rather than guess, I'll just ask, what do you mean by this?



Edit: A non answer is an answer in itself.
 
Last edited:
There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process.

The idea that a god "guided the evolutionary process" is not necessarily inconsistent with belief in evolution as explained by science. It's true that many intelligent design supporters are basically just creationists trying to cloak themselves in science, but ID and evolution are not inherently contradictory. Therefore I don't think that it's safe to assume that the majority of Americans don't accept evolution, based on that poll. I suspect that a good many of them who said that a god guided the evolutionary process were basically saying "I believe in God, and I accept evolution."

But yeah...the people who reject evolution are morons, and simply don't understand science. There aren't two sides to the debate that are equally meritorious, because one side is simply ignorant of the issue and refuses to learn.
 
Last edited:
^ I mostly agree with you, but the problem is that many Creationists think that humans are static in nature, that God made us the way we are and we are never going to be better than this. i.e. we are not currently evolving. If you study basic biology you'll know that even DNA in a living human is changing, right now. Genes turn off and others turn on, new mutations happen, some good, some bad.

There are different degrees of absurdity within the debate. Some discussions are reasonable, like the ones you're talking about. Religion and evolution can co-exist so long as God put it into motion, but there are people who won't even accept evolution itself. They reject all scientific rationales.

I've been to Europe and I've lived in Canada a couple of years now. When it comes to this debate, the world thinks we are a laughing stock, and I am embarrassed for our country. I have to apologize on behalf of America every time some foreigner brings up the subject. On one had we have one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth whose scientists and engineers are bar none, but we have a majority population that doesn't even believe in evolution. It's madness.
 
funny-kid-14.jpg
 
I think we have to be careful about ascribing the global term ‘ignorant’ to people that don’t accept evolution as proven. Very educated people able to do critical thinking do not accept evolution as proven. The question is who are they and classifying them as the ignorant is an error, i.e. factually wrong. It also stops any discussion with them, so it’s not helpful.
However, it is helpful to read about these 3 types of ignorance. Go to Wikipedia to find all 3 under ignorance. This may provide a guide to the root issue.
• Pluralistic ignorance, a concept in social psychology
• Rational ignorance, a concept in epistemology
• Vincible ignorance, a moral or doctrinal matter in Catholic ethics
 
I think we have to be careful about ascribing the global term ‘ignorant’ to people that don’t accept evolution as proven. Very educated people able to do critical thinking do not accept evolution as proven. The question is who are they and classifying them as the ignorant is an error, i.e. factually wrong. It also stops any discussion with them, so it’s not helpful.
However, it is helpful to read about these 3 types of ignorance. Go to Wikipedia to find all 3 under ignorance. This may provide a guide to the root issue.
• Pluralistic ignorance, a concept in social psychology
• Rational ignorance, a concept in epistemology
• Vincible ignorance, a moral or doctrinal matter in Catholic ethics

Disbelieving evolution is as silly as believing the world is flat.

The genetic data is overwhelming. So much so that it alone is more than enough to solidify evolution. Add in paleontology, geographic distribution, and anatomy and it cements evolution as a fact.

There are still many aspects of evolution that scientists are studying and disagree about, but they are details, not whether evolution as a whole occurs--there is no doubt about that amongst scientists whose main field of study is something related, such as biology, paleontology, or genetics.. Sure, its possible that evolution may be wrong, and it is also "possible" that the earth may not be round.
 
Last edited:
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.

While there is a loud religious objection to evolution, only a small minority of religious people actually object to the theory. Those few who care enough to make a noise, dedicate their lives and treasure to making a substantial disturbance, often drowning out the religious who agree with evolution.

The opposite is also true, in that well researched, purely scientific objections made by credible, qualified professionals, are routinely drowned out by militant Secular Humanists.

The radical religious would have one believe modern scientists are advancing a known lie, when in fact your typical average religious person takes little or no issue with evolution at all.

The radical anti-religious would have you believe some global conspiracy on how the Vatican is trying to reassert it's global authority, when in fact your average typical scientist extends a warm welcome to sincere criticisms of any theory.

In short, in America, it's all to-do about nothing.....just like gay marriage and abortion.

Let's not forget that many prominent forefathers of modern science were profoundly religious.
 
Last edited:
scourge99, you are being redundant and missing the point that Hatuey wants to address. I’m sure what you think the root cause of the difference is would be interesting.
Disbelieving evolution is as silly as believing the world is flat.

The genetic data is overwhelming. So much so that it alone is more than enough to solidify evolution. Add in paleontology, geographic distribution, and anatomy and it cements evolution as a fact.

There are still many aspects of evolution that scientists are studying and disagree about, but they are details, not whether evolution as a whole occurs--there is no doubt about that amongst scientists whose main field of study is something related, such as biology, paleontology, or genetics.. Sure, its possible that evolution may be wrong, and it is also "possible" that the earth may not be round.
 
Disbelieving evolution is as silly as believing the world is flat.

The genetic data is overwhelming. So much so that it alone is more than enough to solidify evolution. Add in paleontology, geographic distribution, and anatomy and it cements evolution as a fact.

There are still many aspects of evolution that scientists are studying and disagree about, but they are details, not whether evolution as a whole occurs--there is no doubt about that amongst scientists whose main field of study is something related, such as biology, paleontology, or genetics.. Sure, its possible that evolution may be wrong, and it is also "possible" that the earth may not be round.

It's amazing how a policy penned so as to maintain political control of a local region, for a historically brief moment in time, could still cause ripples today. Young-Earth Creationism is based on the literal reading of a translated text, which as a translation is itself inherently flawed; and the lie was deliberately generated. Only the truly misguided ever sincerely believed Young Earth Creationism. From both a philosophical and scientific point of view, YEC is so easily rebuked one wonders if the Kool-aid is laced with heroin or meth to keep it's true believers drinking.

Spare yourself and give it as little attention as possible.
 
Last edited:
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.

In all honesty I could never support a theory that when tested in the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproducible Experimentation concludes with the same outcome....such a theory is "falsified" by the application of Physical Science. There has never been one experiment out of countless hundreds of thousands that has been conducted in the scientific method that demonstrates the Vertical Evolution of Dead Matter into biological life...is even a possibility might less a probability, yet even after being falsified time and time again....this theory is taught as a FACT of Science. I could never support a blatant fabrication.

Its a simple thing...if such is indeed a fact of PHYSICAL SCIENCE, just present the experiment that demonstrates that life can be spontaneously generated from dead matter void of injecting preexisting life into the experiment. Until such an event takes place, I could never lie in order to promote the doctrine of Darwinian Cultism.
 
Last edited:
^ I mostly agree with you, but the problem is that many Creationists think that humans are static in nature, that God made us the way we are and we are never going to be better than this. i.e. we are not currently evolving. If you study basic biology you'll know that even DNA in a living human is changing, right now. Genes turn off and others turn on, new mutations happen, some good, some bad.

There are different degrees of absurdity within the debate. Some discussions are reasonable, like the ones you're talking about. Religion and evolution can co-exist so long as God put it into motion, but there are people who won't even accept evolution itself. They reject all scientific rationales.

I've been to Europe and I've lived in Canada a couple of years now. When it comes to this debate, the world thinks we are a laughing stock, and I am embarrassed for our country. I have to apologize on behalf of America every time some foreigner brings up the subject. On one had we have one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth whose scientists and engineers are bar none, but we have a majority population that doesn't even believe in evolution. It's madness.

Why not present just ONE MUTATION of human DNA that has added unto the existing strain of DNA instead of making the already existing strain weaker and defected. Mutation always takes away. Having a dormant DNA trait in the structure is not evolution, as Horizontal Evolution is indeed a fact of science (evolution within the same species) aka, Micro Evolution, if such were not a fact the first time that mankind came into contract with the common cold virus and man could not adapt to his surroundings man would have ceased to exist. But Horizontal Evolution is a far cry from Vertical Evolution of Macro Life, having all life evolve from DEAD MATTER into a single cell into more complex life and finally into mankind...is simply an unprovable fairy tale.
 
Last edited:
^ I mostly agree with you, but the problem is that many Creationists think that humans are static in nature, that God made us the way we are and we are never going to be better than this. i.e. we are not currently evolving. If you study basic biology you'll know that even DNA in a living human is changing, right now. Genes turn off and others turn on, new mutations happen, some good, some bad.

There are different degrees of absurdity within the debate. Some discussions are reasonable, like the ones you're talking about. Religion and evolution can co-exist so long as God put it into motion, but there are people who won't even accept evolution itself. They reject all scientific rationales.

I've been to Europe and I've lived in Canada a couple of years now. When it comes to this debate, the world thinks we are a laughing stock, and I am embarrassed for our country. I have to apologize on behalf of America every time some foreigner brings up the subject. On one had we have one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth whose scientists and engineers are bar none, but we have a majority population that doesn't even believe in evolution. It's madness.


Part of the problem lies in how evolution is often framed. As a scientific theory, it is normally presented as natural events that occurred with a total absence of divine guidance.

Now, hold on a sec. I'm prefectly aware that a scientist who said "God guided evolution to produce the lifeforms that currently exist", in an official peer-reviewed thesis paper, would find himself in quite a mess with his fellow scientists. I know perfectly well that "and THEN a MIRACLE happens!" is not an acceptible corrolary to a hypothesis, or an acceptible step in solving an equation.

The problem is that evolution has been rammed up our collective arses as a divisive line between the scientific and the religious, and both sides have engaged in their share of the ramming and the dividing.

Many denominations, including Catholicism, have chosen to consider the Genesis account to be allegorical rather than literal, and to specify that while God was the author of Creation and it's guiding hand, that that doesn't mean that scientific theories of evolution are not themselves valid within their own context.... which is to say, the scientific realm of thought, rather than the spiritual realm of faith.

Yet, a small but loud minority of the anti-religious have chosen to denigrate this position and disparage the moderate denominations for daring to inject God into the discussion at all. This provokes a counter-reaction that widens the divisiveness of the issue.

I take a slightly different tack.

The God I believe in is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and infinite. He is not bound by the laws of physics; they are merely tools in His toolbox, to be bent or broken as He wishes. Time runs backwards, forwards or sideways at His whim. All the things that science thinks took place over 4.3 billion years could have been done by Him in six "Days" easily.... think of it as a celestical "fast forward button" if you like. So the scientists could be both right and wrong... right, in that these processes would have taken 4.3 billion years from the human POV, if they occured naturally and without intervention... wrong, in that the Divine guidance they choose not to address was actually in control, and it happened at whatever pace God willed in whatever period of time he chose to percieve as "six days".

I believe the God created the universe and everything in it. I do not know whether Genesis is intended to be taken literally, or as a symbolic/allegorical explanation that was as much as the people of that day were capable of understanding. I don't worry about it. God will fill me in on the seeming dichotomy later. ;)

It's a divisive issue because certain people on both sides want to make it that way. It doesn't have to be though. We could choose to live and let live. I won't criticize of you if you think it all happened through natural processes, if you'll allow me to say that I believe God was in control, whatever the details might be, without sniggering up your sleeve. :)
 
You can scream the truth from the mountain top and be wrong at the top of your voice.

Except it isn't wrong. It is supported by an absurd amount of evidence, unlike religion which is supported by jack squat.

Reality matters. Deal with it.
 
Except it isn't wrong. It is supported by an absurd amount of evidence, unlike religion which is supported by jack squat.

Reality matters. Deal with it.

See, this is another example. The whole "jack squat" and "deal with it" nonsense is nothing more then an emotional release, not a logical argument. Hardly scientific at all.

You take facts and rearrange them in ways they don't apply to the principal anymore. Yes you can source those facts, which is how you can scream the truth, but you misapply them, which is how you can be wrong at the top of your voice. Add to that all the emotion, and you have nothing left but molten irrationality.

I suggest trying to address the topic either in a rational fashion, or not at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom