• 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
Jzyehoshua said:
While I would say there is a growing segment of scientists who identify with the I.D. or creationist crowd, and while I suspect it to be in part based on the recent discoveries I mentioned, they are still certainly in the minority. At the same time though, I don't believe it's become common knowledge yet that Darwin identified a plausible alternative, as I have never seen this mentioned on any creationist or I.D. site before - I found it myself by simply reading his book. I like to read source material like senate transcripts and legislation, and check for myself, doing my own research. Once that changes, I expect even more scientists could begin seriously questioning the alternative Darwin provided.
Click to expand...

Growing segment? What?
Of course ID is a minority in biology. It's not even comparable to the number of scientists accepting evolution. Something like Project Steve only underscores this.
 
iamitter said:
It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Blackdog is as wrong as usual on this topic (probably because he can't read properly).

Evolution makes a prediction as to where a species will be found in the record and low and behold, it's right almost all of the time. We do not find a fossil record that supports YEC at all. In fact, technically under a YEC world, there should be no fossils at all until the fall of man because there was no death and after that all of the fossils should have species from all eras of Earth as they all existed at the same time. And then we get the real issue of the flood where we should see a dense concentration of every organism in the same exact strata. Nothing like this occurs. Anywhere.

Evolution is likely true because it meets the very basic requirements for a good theory. It makes predictions that are testable and that prove to be true. Creationism (which I mean YEC, don't get your panties in a bunch) provides predictions that are never correct.

How many tangible commercial products outside of propaganda has Creationism produced/help produce?
How many tangible commercial products outside of propaganda has Evolution produced/help produce? I bet some of you drove today. Gasoline is one of them.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about not reading properly, he clearly said "I know I am biased, but ... that is how it appeared to me during study" and that other things "actually provides more evidence".
I would agree others are more definitive, but I disagree that "The fossil record is a dead end for evolution"
 
Aunt Spiker said:
My sister, her husband - my Dad, my ex - and many others - believe God got things started and that included the evolutionary process.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you can't believe in both God and evolution... it's really dumb to me that people think it's impossible.

Also, I think a lot of people really don't understand what evolution is... they hear "evolution" and their knee jerk response is "IT'S JUST A THEORY." I really think when people write-off evolution as just a theory, they are showing how uneducated and ignorant they are on the topic. Evolution is more than just the observation Darwin made about apes and people... large parts of evolution is regarded as fact by the scientific community and respected theories.

Charles Darwin was a very intelligent man and well respected scientist, he wasn't some atheist out to prove God didn't exist.
 
iamitter said:
I don't know about not reading properly, he clearly said "I know I am biased, but ... that is how it appeared to me during study" and that other things "actually provides more evidence".
I would agree others are more definitive, but I disagree that "The fossil record is a dead end for evolution"
Click to expand...

IMO, YECs reject the fossil record because it provides absolutely no proof for their belief. Maybe Blackdog had a really bad teacher. The basic premise of the record is something any of us can see. Hell, ask a mother of a teenage boy. The pile of clothes in his room starts with the shirt he dropped first. Therefore, he wore that shirt before the rest. Respective layers are dated much the same. To say that the Fossil Record doesn't support evolution is basically saying that the pile of dirty unwashed clothes didn't form as we all know it did. That it formed different, with the first layer actually being not the oldest.

Can anyone name a single prediction about historical life that YEC made correctly?
 
SheWolf said:
he wasn't some atheist out to prove God didn't exist.
Click to expand...

That's hard to do, no matter how smart you are, considering god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis :p
 
iamitter said:
It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

Yes it is small and incomplete, but it is also a dead end in that it shows very little in the way of any verifiable links from say a common ancestor to a frog and an ape. We have guesses, but no proof at all.

Now include the more recent discovery's in DNA and you have got much better evidence.

iamitter said:
@Jzye
These things arising don't reveal any growing doubt, at least not amongst the evolutionary biologists who study these things. If anything, it reflects good science.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are lots of claims in this post without any attribution. :thumbsdown:
 
Goshin said:
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 perfectly 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. :)
Click to expand...

I don't understand why God has to be brought into science all the time... No prophet came here to teach us science, so why is anybody worried about God's role in science? Many questions in science are limited to theory, and will always be... Science can give us theories on how the earth may have been created... and even if we could recreate the big bang theory in a lab, it will still remain just a theory because such a demonstration would only show it's possible. It doesn't show that that is what happened.

I love science... it was always one of my favourite subjects as a child and still is. Nowhere did I get the message that I can't believe in both science or god. I also happen to enjoy evolutionary science.

But it does seem that historically people haven't let the two subjects remain separate. Religious texts are not supposed to be science texts. The religious community has been offended by science before... They put Galileo on trial and almost killed him for saying the Earth moved around the sun... wtf. But Galileo said he wasn't wrong. He said he believed in God, and he didn't let his knowledge weaken his faith. He said during his trial that if the bible conflicts with science, then maybe you're interpreting the bible wrong and that's what he believed was right, that was his faith. God still existed and science wasn't bad or evil.

Sometimes people in the science field are not atheist... but they still feel the religious community is an obstacle.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Yes it is small and incomplete, but it is also a dead end in that it shows very little in the way of any verifiable links from say a common ancestor to a frog and an ape. We have guesses, but no proof at all.

Now include the more recent discovery's in DNA and you have got much better evidence.
Click to expand...

The scientific community does not "guess" in that regard. Hypotheses are not pulled out of thin air, they are based on the already gathered evidence. There is a great deal of proof, contrary to what you think. It is just not fully conclusive... yet. A hypothesis attempts to tie the data together, and then the missing parts are investigated, and the hypothesis changes over time (evolves) so that eventually a consistent theory emerges that accounts for all the data.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is small and incomplete, but it is also a dead end in that it shows very little in the way of any verifiable links from say a common ancestor to a frog and an ape. We have guesses, but no proof at all.
Click to expand...

Whoa there. Proofs are for math. Your notion of what science is seems to be at odds with what it actually is. Science, unlike your YEC, is not set in stone. There is no "proof." There is only evidence.

Furthermore, the large fossil record does provide evidence for common descent.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Don't join that forum. None of us are qualified to post there.
 
obvious Child said:
Whoa there. Proofs are for math. Your notion of what science is seems to be at odds with what it actually is. Science, unlike your YEC, is not set in stone. There is no "proof." There is only evidence.

Furthermore, the large fossil record does provide evidence for common descent.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Don't join that forum. None of us are qualified to post there.
Click to expand...

I had a professor in college who said that real science (physics) can actually be proven while the fake sciences, farming (biology) and cooking (chemistry) cannot.
I'm biased in that regard, too. Despite my career choice, I still consider myself a mathematician, as that is what my original grad degree is in, and that makes me prefer quantized science.
 
Paschendale said:
The scientific community does not "guess" in that regard. Hypotheses are not pulled out of thin air, they are based on the already gathered evidence. There is a great deal of proof, contrary to what you think. It is just not fully conclusive... yet. A hypothesis attempts to tie the data together, and then the missing parts are investigated, and the hypothesis changes over time (evolves) so that eventually a consistent theory emerges that accounts for all the data.
Click to expand...

Example: creature a is one thing. Creature b is another. creature a is similar to creature b. Creature c has similarities to a and b, so c must be the common creature.

We have nothing else but fossilized bone and maybe skin etc to tell us anything, so I disagree.

An educated guess, is still a guess.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
IMO, YECs reject the fossil record because it provides absolutely no proof for their belief. Maybe Blackdog had a really bad teacher. The basic premise of the record is something any of us can see. Hell, ask a mother of a teenage boy. The pile of clothes in his room starts with the shirt he dropped first. Therefore, he wore that shirt before the rest. Respective layers are dated much the same. To say that the Fossil Record doesn't support evolution is basically saying that the pile of dirty unwashed clothes didn't form as we all know it did. That it formed different, with the first layer actually being not the oldest.

Can anyone name a single prediction about historical life that YEC made correctly?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I would like to dispute this, actually. In the book of Job it refers specifically to one of the brachiosaurs as 'behemoth' and something similar to a plesiosaur as a dragon. Job is considered one of the oldest books in the Bible given Job's great age (he is said in the last chapter to live 140 years after the events and already had many children at the beginning of the book, thus the longevity of one of the patriarchs near the time of the Abraham, as lifespans in the genealogies began steadily decreasing after the flood) lack of mention of the law or tabernacle, and various geographical/name references.

Anyway, the references are in Job chapters 40 and 41. As someone who grew up learning about dinosaurs (I liked quizzing people on how to spell 'Pterodactyl' in grade school, for example) it always seemed striking to me some of the similarities. The Behemoth is described as a monstrous herbivore whose strength is in his stomach and whose tail moves like a cedar (huge long tree). It speaks of it lying in the shade of trees near the reeds by the water, and how it 'drinks up rivers'.

In chapter 41, it describes the leviathan, a huge underwater creature actually said to have air-tight scales (vv. 15-17). It describes him leaving an odd wake behind him, similar to the squid (vv. 31-32). In Psalms 104:26 it was said to disturb ships. It emphasizes neck strength (v. 23). What differs from the account of dinosaurs though is the extensive mention of fire breathing (vv. 18-21) which is mentioned repeatedly to avoid leaving doubt about the meaning. Further unusual is the reference in Isaiah 27:1 suggesting it won't go extinct until the end of days.

Anyway, those 2 chapters provide the best possibility I'm aware of of mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, both land and sea versions. They do seem to provide the possibility of definite archaic mention by what is possibly the oldest book in the Bible.
 
The other thing to realize with some of the YECs is they don't necessarily believe the dinos went extinct. I've seen them claim the water canopy theory as a way reptiles grew larger, and that with the collapse of such a firmament, dinosaurs simply became smaller versions in the same way that humans began living shorter lives after the flood according to the Biblical genealogies. I haven't examined the theory too seriously yet myself, but I do mention it as an alternative possibility in relation to the statement previously made that YECs have no way to reconcile the fossil record with their beliefs.

Again, with that whole parent species, microevolution stuff that Creationists believe in, they'd actually believe in faster adaptation to the environment occurring on a quicker time scale, but only within species, not between them.

EDIT: This is just one of the many articles out there suggesting a Greenhouse Effect by such a water canopy, in relation to the mention of a firmament in Genesis not mentioned later after the flood. Basically it's hypothesis that reptiles grew larger under such a system. I never followed up on it, I just noticed it a few years ago and generally ignored it. I keep it in the back of my mind as one of the alternatives to consider, as I found the idea intriguing. Anyway, if that were true, dinosaurs wouldn't have gone extinct, just adapted to a post-flood world and grown smaller just as human lifespans decreased with the former growing conditions caused by such a canopy destroyed. Personally, I always found the possibility humorous that the Iguana in someone's cage could be descended from the fearsome dinos.
 
Last edited:
I think there are of course exceptions, so it's hard to say "yes" so absolutely. But given the other choice is "no" so absolutely, I'd have to say yes.
 
Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious??


The debate is definitely NOT between scientists... :)
 
The politically religious are philosophically pure rationalists, which means that they can't accept contradictions within their belief system. To accept God must mean accepting anything consistent with their line of thought and denouncing anything that is inconsistent. Thus, science and empiricism to them is a foreign object. You can't argue empiricism against a pure rationalist, which is why science and religion can't argue on the same battleground.

There are plenty of balanced religious people who can accept an apparent contradiction, though, because they know that it's impossible for humanity to grasp the nature of the unknown.
 
mgblack said:
The politically religious are philosophically pure rationalists, which means that they can't accept contradictions within their belief system. To accept God must mean accepting anything consistent with their line of thought and denouncing anything that is inconsistent. Thus, science and empiricism to them is a foreign object. You can't argue empiricism against a pure rationalist, which is why science and religion can't argue on the same battleground.

There are plenty of balanced religious people who can accept an apparent contradiction, though, because they know that it's impossible for humanity to grasp the nature of the unknown.
Click to expand...


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.
 
SheWolf said:
I don't understand why God has to be brought into science all the time... No prophet came here to teach us science, so why is anybody worried about God's role in science? Many questions in science are limited to theory, and will always be... Science can give us theories on how the earth may have been created... and even if we could recreate the big bang theory in a lab, it will still remain just a theory because such a demonstration would only show it's possible. It doesn't show that that is what happened.

I love science... it was always one of my favourite subjects as a child and still is. Nowhere did I get the message that I can't believe in both science or god. I also happen to enjoy evolutionary science.

But it does seem that historically people haven't let the two subjects remain separate. Religious texts are not supposed to be science texts. The religious community has been offended by science before... They put Galileo on trial and almost killed him for saying the Earth moved around the sun... wtf. But Galileo said he wasn't wrong. He said he believed in God, and he didn't let his knowledge weaken his faith. He said during his trial that if the bible conflicts with science, then maybe you're interpreting the bible wrong and that's what he believed was right, that was his faith. God still existed and science wasn't bad or evil.

Sometimes people in the science field are not atheist... but they still feel the religious community is an obstacle.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define "god".

If your god is an anthropomorphic being with human emotion and human motiviation, then science and god are not compatible.

If your god is a self-aware intelligent creative force, again, science and god are not compatible (nothing in science supports any belief in an intellgent deity).

If your god is merely a creative impulse that shovels out random universes, then science doesn't provide any basis for theorizing about the nature of that impulse.

So, sure, true science and god are compatible, so long as one recognizes that there's no evidentiary basis for speculations about god.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is small and incomplete, but it is also a dead end in that it shows very little in the way of any verifiable links from say a common ancestor to a frog and an ape. We have guesses, but no proof at all.

Now include the more recent discovery's in DNA and you have got much better evidence.
Click to expand...

Tiktaalik, conclusive evidence of a common ancestor between frog and man.

Also Mayor Snorkum recommends the book "Your Inner Fish".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom