The Instigator
SkepticLankan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kaminochoro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism is not science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 38838
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SkepticLankan

Pro

Creationism isn't science. Science is a physical module that is able to explain natural phenomena based on factual empirical evidence. Evidence is the base of any science. Creationism lacks evidence. And biblical or quranic scripture doesn't qualify as evidence, because they are all testimonies. People often use, the lack of knowledge as the proof of creationism, like the complexity of organisms. Organisms are in fact really complex, but how they came to be, we don't know yet. But that is not evidence for any deity or creation myths.
kaminochoro

Con

Creationism is a science. A science as defined by the dictionary is ,"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Pro believes that science is based off of evidence and testimonials don't count evidence. What about Medical Journals and other forms of primary resources? Science is not based on evidence, it is based on hypothesis and trial and error. Evidence just supports your claim, you are not trying to prove yourself "right". Creationism is like Evolution and Philosophy, you cannot prove it 'right', but it tries to explain the world around us. I personally believe all types of sciences like creationism are just trying to explain us.
Debate Round No. 1
SkepticLankan

Pro

You definition is correct, but you got one little detail off. Observation is done on evidence. Scientists don't group around the table and make theories and then look for evidence, No. That is actually complete reversal of scientific approach. In scientific method, when we come across an issue, we look at the evidence, and then we formulate a theory. Not the other way around. If you have evidence, you can claim a theory. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are just making up theories with no basis of evidence. Science is based on evidence, not thousand year old anonymous scripture. Even creationists admit they start from the bible. Unlike creationism, evolution is an accepted scientific fact proven through vast amounts of evidence ranging from molecular genetics to fossil record. Evolution is unanimously accepted by all the disciplines of science all over the world. Scientists are certain about evolution, to the same degree historians are certain about the existence of Napoleon. It is a fact, and it is not going to change. All creationism has to back itself up, is just the scripture that has no legitimacy, let alone an authorship. Testimonies are not evidence. If testimonies are evidence, then harry potter must really exist because his book says he exist. Which is ridiculous even to think like that. Medical journals and other scientific paper are 'secondary' research material, not primary. Scientists don't believe in newtonian physics solely on the physics text book, they believe it because it works on real life. There is evidence for it on the real world. Chemists don't believe potassium permanganate is purple because the chemistry book says it is purple, no. They believe it is purple because they have seen the evidence, that it is purple. It is simple science really.

And proving evolution wrong, doesn't mean it automatically proves creationism as the truth. No. The science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't encourage that kind of thinking. To prove creationism correct, you must have evidence, and not just one evidence. And testimonies are considered 'secondary' research material which is not evidence. Anyone could refer the Bible or the Quran, and point out it says god created the man, but where is the evidence for that? Are we gonna believe what a book says us to believe? Or should we look at the world around us and decide what should we believe through evidence instead?
kaminochoro

Con

kaminochoro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SkepticLankan

Pro

SkepticLankan forfeited this round.
kaminochoro

Con

kaminochoro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.