How Evolution and Creationism can co-exist - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

How Evolution and Creationism can co-exist
in Philosophy

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 114 Pts
According to a Wikipedia entry creationism is defined as the following:
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to through natural processes, such as evolution.

Now, I see a dichotomous problem here within this definition. The problem with this definition which is also a pretty accurate reflection of many of the beliefs that are shared by numerous people in some parts of the world is that it implies evolution and creationism both defy one another which in fact they don't. Creationism is a matter of faith and evolution is the study of the progression of living organisms.

Furthermore, evolution hasn't yet told us about the initiation of life and universe; if had there would be no need for other branches of science such as theoretical physics for example. By the same token, creationism, which relates to a matter of faith doesn't tell us anything about the origin of life and the universe either; hence it's a matter of faith.

So to conclude, one can still accept evolution and still believe in either a religious divine or intelligent design that initiated the processes that relate to evolution. Likewise, one can still be an evolutionary biologist and still be a faithful person. I do not see any reason as to why the two cannot currently co-exist.

Now I would like to ask your views and I look forward to some rebuttals if any (the fun part).





  1. Live Poll

    Do you agree with that evolution and creationism can co-exist?

    8 votes
    1. Yes
      37.50%
    2. No
      62.50%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • They'll only co-exist if the religious weren't shoving creationism down peoples throats. Go to a private school if you want to learn myths
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenGeorge_Horse
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/

  • They'll only co-exist if the religious weren't shoving creationism down peoples throats. Go to a private school if you want to learn myths

    Who/what are you referencing when you talk about religious people shoving creationism down people's throats? Also, what is the relevance of myths and private schools?

    Forgive me if seems like I am challenging you; I am not. I just some clarification so as possible future responses based on misunderstandings can be avoided. 



  • They'll only co-exist if the religious weren't shoving creationism down peoples throats. Go to a private school if you want to learn myths

    Who/what are you referencing when you talk about religious people shoving creationism down people's throats? 

    Mainly those who want to make it mandatory to learn creationism at public schools. They're trying to shoe religion down peoples throats.


    Also, what is the relevance of myths and private schools? 

    Creationism is a myth. Been proven time and time again. But, if you want to learn about it. Private Christian schools can provide the learning of myths

    Forgive me if seems like I am challenging you; I am not. I just some clarification so as possible future responses based on misunderstandings can be avoided. 



    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Well, literal creationism (young/old earth creationism, Adam & Eve, Noah, etc,) can't co-exist with Science in general because, well, Reality really.  And that is what's usually understood when using the term creationism... Wikipedia's definition of creationism is too broad here... 
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Evolution doesn't cover the creation of life, abiogenesis does.

    You can believe in Creationism and Science theoretically without issue, but in practice it's much more difficult because

    a) Creationism is usually brought about by particular religions, which will in turn have far more beliefs than "god greated life" and thus grounds for conflict.

    b) It involves applying contradictory methods of making determinations. Is the scientific method the best determination for making judgements about the objective nature of our universe or not? If it is, then blind faith seems irrational. Perhaps not mutually exclusive, but certainly requiring some cognitive dissonance to believe in the two simultaneously.
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987

  • Evolution doesn't cover the creation of life, abiogenesis does.

    Hmm, interesting. I am not familiar with abiogenesis. As for the initiation of the origination or the origination of the initiation of life neither evolution/science or creationism as of yet gives us any substantiative answers. Therefore, the idea that an intelligent design that is a possibility is still up for belief.

    a) Creationism is usually brought about by particular religions, which will in turn have far more beliefs than "god greated life" and thus grounds for conflict.

    This is true and is something that could do with being dealt with. It would be helpful if many of the rigorous religious people were more open to change, much like the prophets they follow were.

    b) It involves applying contradictory methods of making determinations. Is the scientific method the best determination for making judgements about the objective nature of our universe or not? If it is, then blind faith seems irrational. Perhaps not mutually exclusive, but certainly requiring some cognitive dissonance to believe in the two simultaneously.

    Do you think that the belief in a possibility of a scientific devine rests on blind faith?

    Is the scientific method the best determination for making judgements about the objective nature of our universe or not? If it is, then blind faith seems irrational.

    This specific bit here is a very good point actually and reminds me of a quote by Scientist Peter Atkins that said:

    “It is not possible to be intellectually honest and believe in gods. And it is not possible to believe in gods and be a true scientist.” ― P.W. Atkins



  • It was said; I think therefore I am. No one  really has real  proff of anything everything has been handed down under bias views not truth history is handed down from human beings are Fallible and are under a state of illusion not true conciseness. Nether does Artificial intelligence is what sets us apart consciousness.
  • Everything is just a  hypotheses. Just ones own perception of the truth. 

  • Religions and evolution can’t be Quantified they are both human belief and just Theories religion is faith or hope and evolution is more mutation a description of human perception which can’t be proven just like the universe just as the Theory of the universe as  Einstein said the only thing that infinitive is the universe and stupidity! 

  • @ZeusAres42


    Hmm, interesting. I am not familiar with abiogenesis. As for the initiation of the origination or the origination of the initiation of life neither evolution/science or creationism as of yet gives us any substantiative answers. Therefore, the idea that an intelligent design that is a possibility is still up for belief. 

    As I already mentioned Evolution wouldn't give you answers to why life began because it's a different topic that doesn't cover life beginning; it covers who life evolves after it began not how it began. In the same way astrophysics wouldn't give you answers to a biology problem or atomic theory wouldn't help you calculate the mass of Jupiter; it's not that science doesn't have answers it's just you're looking in an inappropriate subset off science.

    Here's an overview of Abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Essentially we've a decent grasp of how simple molecules could turn into cells and scientists have already managed to change inorganic compounds into proteins in lab conditions which replicate the factors that would have been in play on earth billions of years ago. There are some questions and the one that will probably never be answered is not "How could life possibly begin" but rather "Out of the many different scientifically valid ways life could originate from nothing but inorganic matter, which is the one that actually occurred and kickstarted life".

    If you look through the article, you'll see there are several potentially valid options for how life could have originated scientifically - a god is not one of them because whatever the answer is it should conform to the known parameters of how the universe works. The issue is that there's probably never going to be a way to find out which of the scientifically feasible options are correct.


    Do you think that the belief in a possibility of a scientific devine rests on blind faith? 
    Yes. While we can throw in the usual disclaimers like "potentially all things are possible and science is open to change as new evidence comes to light", that puts the existence of a deity on par with the idea that I could turn around and find that the cupboard in my house is a magical portal to Narnia. It's something that no-one should seriously logically believe until actual evidence comes to light to support it.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • Evolution and Young Earth creationism are not compatible with the age of the earth.

  • Yes. While we can throw in the usual disclaimers like "potentially all things are possible and science is open to change as new evidence comes to light", that puts the existence of a deity on par with the idea that I could turn around and find that the cupboard in my house is a magical portal to Narnia.

    Generally speaking, accepting the mere possibility of occurrence is not akin to magical thinking. Accepting the possibility of occurrence is sensible so long as the notion of something being possible revolves around something that has been already known I think.

    I do have some uncertainty but for the most part, I actually do agree that there is no reason to accept the idea of something as possibly being true that isn't substantiative knowable.  And it's just too easy and probably lazy to just turn around and say "God did it." 

    As for the magical portal to Narnia that just defies all of the laws of physics, and reason; so we can say with absolute certainty that will never be the case.

    This all being said, I am leaning more to the side that definitely most if not all religious creationism that encompasses a great many people that are intent of infringing and preaching their supernatural beliefs upon others can't co-exist with science at all let alone evolution. 

    My uncertainty revolves more around that some scientists that are also nonreligious ponder the idea of intelligent design which given their intellectual and academic status I sometimes find hard to fathom. However, as long as all scientists don't all of a sudden start pondering the idea and then start looking for things to confirm they're pondering there shouldn't be any problems.

    I conclude that the only way creationism in terms of intelligent design can co-exist with science is within speculation; nothing more. As for religion, I am at the point now where I think this is outmoded and it is time everyone moved on into the 21st century. 




  • Creationism is based on nonsense. There isn't proof for a god anyways, and Evolution is more logical. So it is this, either believe in some nonsense, or be rational and logical and accept evolution as fact. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • OppolzerOppolzer 117 Pts
    They can co-exist within the person, but they cannot co-exist as concepts.

    The religious belief of creationism can co-exist with scientific thought, such as evolution. Many people on Earth accept both ideas. Although, that wouldn't be creationism. Creationism is an exact line of thinking that adheres to literal interpretations of the bible. That thinking can most definitely not co-exist with evolution, because they contradict each other fundamentally. And in my opinion, creationism conflicts science to an unreasonable extent:

    Scientific evidence cannot co-exist with the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old. 

    Scientific evidence cannot co-exist with the idea that a flood devastated the Earth, and today's life forms result from the two by two on a boat.

    And back to evolution, scientific evidence cannot co-exist with the idea that God created every modern species.

    You don't have to agree with creationism, nor evolution completely. That's why we created a concept known as "theistic evolution."
    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch