• 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
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.

The major benefit of subscribing to day-age creationism is that I can fully support both evolution and intelligent design without conflict. In my mind there is no debate, there's a 3rd option which allows both.
 
The major benefit of subscribing to day-age creationism is that I can fully support both evolution and intelligent design without conflict. In my mind there is no debate, there's a 3rd option which allows both.

There should be no conflict. Evolution tells how life on Earth was created. God allows us to speculate as to why.
 
There are inummerable ways to reconcile religions with reality and the facts but that doesn't mean any are true. ALL biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and errors can be "explained" by speculation, "interpretation" and opinion. Offering alternative "explanations" does not remove the contradiction, inconsistency or error, but presents a "positive spin" that MAY apply or may not.

I'm very impressed with the logical abilities of theologians, who construct the most intricate, elaborate, methodical apologetics imaginable. The gripe isn't that they're stupid or incapable of rationality, it's that they build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.

I agree, sort of. A theologian may be able to provide a valiant attempt to marry empiricism with religion, but the observable reality that the senses provide run contrary to systematized religious belief, should aforementioned religious belief be based on something other than grounded fact. Once the theologian must resort to speculation to reconcile inconsistencies and grey area, then he/she ceases being scientific. The only way to marry this rationalism and the empirical world is for both to "give" when necessary, and the dogmatic aspect of the major world religions would never allow that.
 
Last edited:
A theologian may be able to provide a valiant attempt to marry empiricism with religion
Most theologians don't care to consistently make claims based on evidence and other verifiable sources. Its a hodgepodge of evidence, philosophy, speculation, and fervent belief.

but the observable reality that the senses provide run contrary to systematized religious belief
The religious would disagree. They develop complex explanations based on unverifiable claims and assertions (speculation). For example, lets say you are debating a pixy-believer. They might assert that gravitation exists, causes objects to fall at 9.8m/s/s, etc... and we would all agree. But they would also claim that its caused by undetectable pixies holding everything down. Such a claim is unfalsifiable and thus useless because there are a limitless number of unfalsifiable claims that can be made.

Many religious think that presenting unfalsifiable claims is a sign of the strength of their argument when it is actually a telltale sign of weakness. This is why you often hear the statement "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Rather, the religious should be saying "this is why you should believe god exists" and pointing us to objective reason and evidence why. For example, who finds this argument valid "you can;t prove pixies don't exist".

And then there are the fideists. Those who think that "faith" in their beliefs is justification. But that is a whole other can of worms. Great thinkers from long ago (both religious and non) have destroyed the basis for fideism. Suffice it to say, fideists claims have indistinguishable truth value from ANY other faith-based claim.

To sum it all up: The difference between science and religion is that science finds answers and religion asserts them.

should aforementioned religious belief be based on something other than grounded fact.
Well there are lots of things that aren't (directly) based on grounded fact. Like which flavor of ice cream you prefer or the meaning you find in particular books.

Once the theologian must resort to speculation to reconcile inconsistencies and grey area, then he/she ceases being scientific.
The religious would retort by saying they have no intention of being "scientific". That religion and science are two separate issues. The religious would be correct. Their beliefs are not scientific, but they
1) fail to support their position with something else that would justify their claims.
or
2) fail to acknowledge the limitations of philosophy and speculation.
This is where they fail.

The only way to marry this rationalism and the empirical world is for both to "give" when necessary, and the dogmatic aspect of the major world religions would never allow that.
Rationalism and the way we think stems from our interaction and experience with the physical world. But the religious cannot support their extraordinary claims by the physical world alone. To bypass this seemingly insurmountable problem, the religious often speculate about alternate realities or "true reality" (E.G., heaven, hell, timeless gods, souls, spirits, demons, transubstantiation, resurrection, etc). They build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.
 
Most theologians don't care to consistently make claims based on evidence and other verifiable sources. Its a hodgepodge of evidence, philosophy, speculation, and fervent belief.

Those are apologists, not necessarily theologians. Apologists insist what they believe is true. Many, if not most theologians focus solely on faith, they couldn't care less about whether or not the beliefs are actually true. Most seminaries teach that what's in the Bible isn't actually true. Check out Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted for a good description of what seminaries teach.

The religious would disagree. They develop complex explanations based on unverifiable claims and assertions (speculation). For example, lets say you are debating a pixy-believer. They might assert that gravitation exists, causes objects to fall at 9.8m/s/s, etc... and we would all agree. But they would also claim that its caused by undetectable pixies holding everything down. Such a claim is unfalsifiable and thus useless because there are a limitless number of unfalsifiable claims that can be made.

That's because the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good. They form a self-identity around these beliefs, to the point where they cannot bring themselves to imagine that they're not real. Therefore, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, they will always demand that what they believe is real. That's why the religious are delusional.
 
Those are apologists, not necessarily theologians. Apologists insist what they believe is true. Many, if not most theologians focus solely on faith, they couldn't care less about whether or not the beliefs are actually true. Most seminaries teach that what's in the Bible isn't actually true. Check out Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted for a good description of what seminaries teach.



That's because the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good. They form a self-identity around these beliefs, to the point where they cannot bring themselves to imagine that they're not real. Therefore, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, they will always demand that what they believe is real. That's why the religious are delusional.

Since faith is accepting something as true without evidence, the very idea of presenting counter evidence seems silly. Evidence didn't form their opinion in the first place, so why would you assume evidence would change it? Talk about delusions.

I for one didn't accept the premise that God exists because I had evidence. That's backwards and leads me to wonder if you even realize how theories work. In order to test your hypothesis you have to operate under various assumed premises which you know you don't have evidence for.

You would have every person stuck in the endless regression of proofs of proofs, proofs of proofs of proofs, and proofs of proofs of proofs. There comes a point where you have to just accept something as reasonable even if you can't bottle it. The assumption of God is made reasonable at a basic social and biological level, and it's a premise from which many tested behaviors prove to be beneficial.

I think militant atheists such as yourself are just uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't hyper-qualify every word they say with "I believe" or "in my opinion".

Your behavior on this forum doesn't represent atheists as well adjusted members of society.
 
That's because the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good. They form a self-identity around these beliefs, to the point where they cannot bring themselves to imagine that they're not real. Therefore, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, they will always demand that what they believe is real. That's why the religious are delusional.

This is a complete and utter failure to logic which you hold so dear.

Just blanket statements based on opinion. No fact, no source, just blanket statements that are not even remotely true. Then you finish it by insulting anyone who has any kind of religious belief. Bravo!

I mean seriously, people are religious for many different reasons. Just that statement is enough to prove that asinine statement you made is nothing but hot air and wrong.
 
the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good.

Not so... They believe because they need to or have to, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs.

We're all hardwired to believe in something. If not religion, other emotional causes, principals, and conventional wisdom that may or may not be true, no matter what they are, or whether they make sense or not, for the the rest of our lives.

ricksfolly
 
Not so... They believe because they need to or have to, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs.

We're all hardwired to believe in something. If not religion, other emotional causes, principals, and conventional wisdom that may or may not be true, no matter what they are, or whether they make sense or not, for the the rest of our lives.

ricksfolly

Every healthy human has a philosophical outlook just as they have a language. Like language, philosophies have different aesthetics, but are all used for the same things.
 
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.

Clashing views in this area have been raging since the dawn of man - when one man conceived one idea and another man conceived a different idea.

It's most certainly not new.

And scientists debating other scientists is just as old.
 
Most seminaries teach that what's in the Bible isn't actually true.
I think that is a minority. Whats taught in seminaries is probably more nuanced but I believe most have a fundamentalist position.

Check out Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted for a good description of what seminaries teach.
I've read it a couple of times.



That's because the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good.
You will never find any room for debate/discussion with theists if you claim to be a mind-reader. Whether its true or not, you wouldn't find it reasonable for someone to tell you that you are an atheist because you "hate god".

They form a self-identity around these beliefs, to the point where they cannot bring themselves to imagine that they're not real.
For some/many, sure. But many are convinced their beliefs are true. That they are both reasonable, defensible, and superior to other positions. Such things can be debated wtihout commenting on one another's mindset.

Therefore, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, they will always demand that what they believe is real. That's why the religious are delusional.
You are correct but i disagree with your spin.

No one can be forced into a belief. They must come to their own conclusions. The best one can do is present the reasoning and evidence to justify an alternative. If your opponent is honest then they will be at least forced to acknowledge the validity of a differing perspective.
 
Since faith is accepting something as true without evidence, the very idea of presenting counter evidence seems silly. Evidence didn't form their opinion in the first place, so why would you assume evidence would change it? Talk about delusions.

I for one didn't accept the premise that God exists because I had evidence. That's backwards and leads me to wonder if you even realize how theories work. In order to test your hypothesis you have to operate under various assumed premises which you know you don't have evidence for.

You would have every person stuck in the endless regression of proofs of proofs, proofs of proofs of proofs, and proofs of proofs of proofs. There comes a point where you have to just accept something as reasonable even if you can't bottle it. The assumption of God is made reasonable at a basic social and biological level, and it's a premise from which many tested behaviors prove to be beneficial.

I think militant atheists such as yourself are just uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't hyper-qualify every word they say with "I believe" or "in my opinion".

Your behavior on this forum doesn't represent atheists as well adjusted members of society.

Fideism has been shown by both philosophers and theologians alike as untenable.

I invite you to read Norman Geisler's critique (a christian who holds a PhD in philosophy) in Christian Apologetics.

Amazon.com: Christian Apologetics (9780801038228): Norman L. Geisler: Books
 
Last edited:
We're all hardwired to believe in something. If not religion, other emotional causes, principals, and conventional wisdom that may or may not be true, no matter what they are, or whether they make sense or not, for the the rest of our lives.
We are all born with a worldview, I agree. But as conscious beings we possess the ability to analyze our experiences, allowing us to evolve our worldview to one that better predicts and conforms to reality and our experiences. But no one can be forced to accept superior explanations. They must arrive at such conclusions themselves. Many fail for a variety of reasons.

The supernatural claims of religions fail in a big way because they are indistinguishable from imaginings.
 
The evolution debate in the USA does not involve scientists per se. It is between the supporters of science and the ignorant.
 
Clashing views in this area have been raging since the dawn of man - when one man conceived one idea and another man conceived a different idea.

It's most certainly not new.

And scientists debating other scientists is just as old.

Except that scientists can prove their points. Theologians never can. Neither the proponents of any organized religion, nor the theists, not the atheists can prove their position. That's the difference between science and religion. None of that means that religion is wrong, of course, except when its beliefs have been proven incorrect scientifically.
 
Since faith is accepting something as true without evidence, the very idea of presenting counter evidence seems silly. Evidence didn't form their opinion in the first place, so why would you assume evidence would change it? Talk about delusions.
It doesn't matter how you formed your opinion. Evidence against a position is still evidence against a position.

I for one didn't accept the premise that God exists because I had evidence. That's backwards and leads me to wonder if you even realize how theories work. In order to test your hypothesis you have to operate under various assumed premises which you know you don't have evidence for.
Then why did you accept the premise? Even if some theories (religion is not a scientific theory) have initial premises, that doesn't make the whole theory that way. Scientific theories have substantial evidence for them, that's why they aren't discarded. Religions have assumptions throughout them.

You would have every person stuck in the endless regression of proofs of proofs, proofs of proofs of proofs, and proofs of proofs of proofs. There comes a point where you have to just accept something as reasonable even if you can't bottle it. The assumption of God is made reasonable at a basic social and biological level, and it's a premise from which many tested behaviors prove to be beneficial.
Assumptions are reasonable when there is a reason to think that they are true, not when they seem nice.

I think militant atheists such as yourself are just uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't hyper-qualify every word they say with "I believe" or "in my opinion".
Precision of language is no vice when dealing with something like religion.

Your behavior on this forum doesn't represent atheists as well adjusted members of society.
 
Not so... They believe because they need to or have to, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs.
So, in other words, exactly what he said.

We're all hardwired to believe in something. If not religion, other emotional causes, principals, and conventional wisdom that may or may not be true, no matter what they are, or whether they make sense or not, for the the rest of our lives.
People change their minds. One's beliefs are not hardwired no matter how unreasonable someone becomes defending them.
 
Last edited:
Every healthy human has a philosophical outlook just as they have a language. Like language, philosophies have different aesthetics, but are all used for the same things.
My philosophy is that I care about what is true.
 
Except that scientists can prove their points. Theologians never can. Neither the proponents of any organized religion, nor the theists, not the atheists can prove their position. That's the difference between science and religion. None of that means that religion is wrong, of course, except when its beliefs have been proven incorrect scientifically.

Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.
 
Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.

Everything remains a theory forever. There is never anything set in stone. However, it's when people start trying to use the non-scientific definition of "theory" that it becomes a problem. A scientific theory is a set of statements that seek to explain how scientific observations and facts happen. It isn't just a random hodgepodge guess. It becomes a problem with these ignorant loons think that a non-scientific theory is on the same level as a scientific theory. It isn't even close.
 
Science isn't always provable
what does that even mean, exactly?

- some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time.
You use the term "theory" in a non-academic manner. This leads to much confusion, equivocation, and conflation.

In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.

The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".

As defined by Kevin Padian in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:

"A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time."

— Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, day 9, a.m. session





Creation is just one example.
There is no scientific consensus on abiogenesis. That does NOT mean there never will be. That does NOT mean there will be.
 
It doesn't matter how you formed your opinion. Evidence against a position is still evidence against a position.

That it is, but repeatedly trying to sway someone's opinion with evidence when their opinion is not based on evidence is the very definition of insanity.

Then why did you accept the premise?

It seems to work. If one accepts that God exists, then based on that accepts God's authority, then based on that follows His rules even when one disagree with them, then if the premises are valid one should see benefits greater than chance.

One day I decided to accept those premises, and I experienced a great improvement since that very day.

How my faith in God has improved my life speaks louder to me than any counter evidence random nameless posters could link in an online debate forum. To sway someone from their faith you would have to get personal and real with them on a one on one basis and demonstrate in real life how your way of seeing things is better.

Even if some theories (religion is not a scientific theory) have initial premises, that doesn't make the whole theory that way. Scientific theories have substantial evidence for them, that's why they aren't discarded. Religions have assumptions throughout them.

Additionally, where scientific theories are to be published for criticism, religion itself is not to be debated. Where the details experiments are supposed to be published, prayer is strictly private.

Science and religion are like oil and water, so it's loonacey to try to counter one with the other.

Assumptions are reasonable when there is a reason to think that they are true, not when they seem nice.

Yup, and most of the time that reason is because a person was socialized to follow that line of tradition. Learned behavior is a powerful force.
 
Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.
To reiterate your misunderstanding of 'Theory'.
A common/unwitting, but self-serving one.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
[....]
1. Evolution is only a 'theory'. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."
Link has expired but postings of it can still be found on the net googling the article title.

The reason many have trouble with evolution is it contradicts their religous indoctrination/creation Myth.
Gravity is also 'only' a theory.
Any problem with that?
 
Last edited:
My philosophy is that I care about what is true.

Pro-lifers care about what is actually true.

I align more with pro-choice in my style of thought, in that whether or not something is 'true' does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.

In that way can I fight for the right to life while carrying the will and ability to end a life.

In this way can I sympathize with a mother who is indeed carrying a unborn "person", yet justify it's death in the event of rape or incest.

In this way can I endorse same sex marriage when it is about the children first, even though it's not a biologically congruent union.

In this way can I oppose same sex marriage when it it's about validating a sexual identity even after it's established as a right.

***
Natural science focuses on what the actual thing is. I personally couldn't care less. I'm looking for what works.

Even if God is fake, my faith in Him works better then no faith at all in my life.
 
Last edited:
So - you guys believe that all scientists aren't possible Christians or believers in Creationism? You just don't see creationsim *as* a theory - when that's all it is.

The definition of Theory:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

And I'm not going to debate this further - I don't believe in creationism so I'm not going to defend and support something that I, myself, find to be hogwash.

Some scientists are Christian and many believe in Creationism :shrug: Other than saying "there's a conflict and this is one of them" there's really nothing more for me to point out.
 
Back
Top Bottom