Darwinism, Evolution by Natural Selection, and Athiesm is False and Un-scientific
Darwinism is an out-dated and Un-proven philosophy. This Century-old idea of evolution and creation without a God is un-scientific, and requires much assumption in their far-reached conclusions that we have no creator, and that living things are capable of adding new genes to a gene pool.
I would like to argue first off, that Darwinism, and Macro-Evolution for that matter, is a philosophy and not a scientific theory. Science can be accurately described as the study of observable happenings, but we cannot observe Macro-Evolution (We can only guess based on fossils found from thousands of years ago), nor can we logically discard the possibility of a creator.
Secondly, I would like to argue that a Universe could not have created itself, nor could it have always existed. It takes simple mathematical skills to know that something cannot come from Nothing, but we also know that Matter and energy could not have existed forever due to the law of thermodynamics, which states that we have a finite amount of energy in the universe. If the Big Bang theory was correct in it's assumption that all matter was pressed up to each other in a star-like ball for eternity before the big bang, than our Finite amount of energy would have already been used up.
Thirdly, The Second law of Thermodynamics states that without outside influence, order will always arrive to disorder. for example, if a room is left untouched for 100 years, then it will become dusty, moldy, and quite messy as wind and drafts will eventually come through the decaying walls. This law can also be applied to Earth's Nature. Cells will not evolve into larger things, but will de-evolve and consolidate into more un-organized things. It takes an outside force to keep the world orderly, and intact.
Lastly, It is hard to believe that there has always been living things, and I do not believe anyone would support the idea that there have always been living things in the universe. But if everything was previously un-living, than how did the first living thing come about? Something living cannot be created from something Non-Living. As my Biology textbook clearly states it:"As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis."
I will make my case in Round 1 and provide my rebuttal in Round 2.
* INTRODUCTION *
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Natural Selection is the process in nature by which (according to Darwin) only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic material to succeeding generations, while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to this as simply "Evolution" going forward.
The scientific method is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. We aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to investigate various scientific theories . In this debate I will prove that Evolution meets that criteria.
* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY  *
- Consistent (internally & externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
== Evolution is Consistent ==
Evolution does not contradict the laws of chemistry or physics or other physical sciences. Additionally, there is essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute [3, 4, 5]. We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. Questions about evolution do not verify creationism.
== Evolution is Parsimonious ==
Evolution is the genetic change over time. This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable.
== Evolution is Useful ==
Denial of evolution amounts to denial of the foundations of modern biology. Evolution explains anatomical and biochemical similarities between different living organisms, including the vestigial components; why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development; why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function; drug resistant bacteria; ring species; biography; the fossil record, etc. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the explanatory framework provided by the theory of evolution, the biological sciences would be disjointed and much within biology would not make sense .
== Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested ==
In order to test a theory, you must first make a prediction by utilizing information to infer or explain past events or physical states. You then devise a way to test the theory and see if it adds up. Not only is this possible with evolution, but it's been proven and explained to the point of being near universally accepted by scientists. Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity are theories. However we're able to prove gravity through explanation. We can do the same with evolution. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is simply how things happen in nature . Evolution can and HAS been tested.
== Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable ==
The theory of evolution has evolved over time depending on the latest evidence to emerge. Today it is indeed a different theory than the one Darwin has described, and we can expect it to change and develop even further considering there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the theory. However, none of the observable facts stand contrary to the idea of genetic change over time. Additionally, there are innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [8, 9, 10]. It is also possible to falsify evolution, meaning if it were actually done then evolution would succumb to intellectual defeat. However none of the presented evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists - 95% of them , and does not disprove the theory anyway but merely challenges it.
= Evolution is Progressive and Tentative ==
This is self-explanatory. Austin Cline best explains, "The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material " something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution" .
* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD *
== Observation ==
The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent .
== Hypothesis ==
A hypothesis about observable changes in nature and its causes has been made regarding macroevolution.
== Testing ==
The test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution . Also, even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species?
== Revising a.k.a. More Testing of Hypothesis ==
The apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented . Additionally, various experiments confirm the process of evolution in fish  and lizards .
* CONCLUSION PART 1 *
Macroevolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. Furthermore it meets the criteria for the scientific method. The concept was derived scientifically by examining nature; this stands contrary to theories that rival evolution like creationism (for which there is no scientific evidence).
* CONCLUSION PART 2 *
Atheism describes the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
I will expand on this and respond to Pro's case in the next round.
Reply to:--Evolution is consistent--
My case is not against Evolution. Evolution is a loose term, easily applied to many different beliefs. We are in General agreeance of the fact that there is evidence to back up Evolution, but Evidence is not observation. We cannot in our lifetime observe Macro-Evolution to our Species, and therefore my argument stands that Macro-Evolution is not Science, but Philosophy.
Reply to:--Evolution is Parsimonious--
I would like to argue that by assuming that their is not a creator, we would also have to guess as to how our universe got here, and how life got here in the first place. It is not only Logical and the simplest explanation to say that their was a God, but it is also proven (arguably) by many after death experiences. I would also like to argue that the assumption of a God is not "New", Infact the Assumption of Evolution is New. I would also like to point out that the word "Unusual" Is relative. I could also say that your theory that Life came from Non-living objects is unusual.
Reply to: -- Evolution is Useful--
Again, My argument is not against Evolution, but Against Evolution without a God. But I would like to raise a question. You are so quick to tell of the need of Evolution to be able to explain the connection between Species, but where did this Living DNA come from in the first place? DNA is a piece of a living thing holding information, but previous to life in your theory, there was no Living Things, or Information. A Creator must have been there to create both the Information, and the Living thing.
Reply to: -- Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested--
Again, your Argument is not addressing my arguments. What you have described here is Micro-Evolution within a species. Cockroaches developing a toleration to a chemical, and Viruses finding new ways to infect people do not make them different species. My Argument was that Macro-Evolution can not be scientifically proven.
Reply to: --Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable--
Macro-Evolution is both Falsifiable and correctable, but Not testable. No one has been alive long enough to observe Macro-Evolution, and Tests can only prove Micro-Evolution, which is observable to mankind. Evolution is based on Logical assumptions based upon evidence of old Fossils, and stones (Not Controlled tests).
Reply to: --Testing--
Fossils can not be considered a "test", but are only evidence. A test must present observable results (Such as combining two chemicals to create a Third), but merely spotting multiple simple fossils does not present observable results. As far as we know, aliens could have eaten all the complex organisms way back when, only leaving the Simple ones. (My point is not that aliens exist, but that we cannot observe was happened in the past, but only estimate based on evidence).
Your Arguments did not address the Debate topic (I am not disproving Evolution), and my point stands that Macro-Evolution is not Testable, or Observable, and therefore isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophical assumption based on Evidence. In Addition, immediately marking a "creator" off the drawing board without proof of his non-existence is un-scientific. Here is my proof of a Creator's existence, even if Macro-Evolution can be a proven fact: Humans came from Monkeys. Monkeys came from some other Animal. Some Animal came From a fish. That Fish came from a Cell. But where did the First cell come from, knowing that Living cannot come from Un-living?
Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It is one of the cornerstones of modern biology.
It's true that Darwin's original theory of Natural Selection missed several points, such as the nature of the genetic material involved and the origin of life. However "Darwin's theory has been amended with answers to these and many other important questions. Darwin's amended theory is called The Modern Synthesis, and includes modern genetics, more advanced ecology and biogeography (fields which Darwin helped to pioneer), better paleontology, and abiogenesis (generation of life from non-life). This is the form of evolution is currently regarded as the most accurate, and is currently adequate in explaining all data observed to date" .
Pro contends that because we cannot observe macroevolution in our lifetime, it therefore does not qualify as science. This is patently false. There are many things we cannot observe yet accept as scientifically accurate, specifically as it pertains to the universe and our solar system. We rely on mathematical formulas and other data to make assumptions we cannot observe . Similarly, macroevolution withstands the scrutiny of the scientific method, and thus we should accept it as scientifically valid until it is disproven via similar scientific scrutiny.
Re: Evolution is Parsimonious
Pro commits the fallacy presented by Occam's razor in his argument . That is the assumption that the simplest argument is the correct one, and that no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. His supposition that the origins of life and the universe "must be God" is unsupported. There is no evidence to verify this other than the assumption that it should simply be understood and accepted as credible which is fallacious. Pro has not (can not) present tests or evidence to confirm this assertion.
Re: Evolution is Useful
According to one biochemist, "God is an unnecessary assumption in explaining the origin and diversity of life. Back in Darwin's day, God was a necessary assumption, since nobody knew enough about biochemistry to justify a hypothesis for the origin of life. Now, however, we have those hypotheses, and that makes God an unnecessary assumption.
There are things that would make God a necessary assumption - for example if we found evidence of ancient organisms interacting with humans (like a dinosaur fossil with spearheads stuck in the side of it). That would mean that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and could not be explained by evolutionary theory (but could fit into either a 'god did it' or 'people traveled back in time and hunted dinosaurs like in Land of the Lost' hypothesis. Of course, we have hundreds of thousands of fossils, and none of them show such interaction, so the likelihood of finding one now is very low" .
Re: Testing Evolution & Repeated Experiments
My opponent claims that fossils don't count as a test because fossils = evidence. But the test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the fossil record and it does. In the last round, I sourced information about how evolution has been tested on lizards and fish (sources #8 and #9) as well.
Pro accepts the reality of microevolution; for example cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species? My opponent has dropped this argument because it affirms Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and thus negates the resolution.
Microevolution is real as observed all over nature. One study researching microevolution in swans concludes that the same logic can be extended to verify macroevolution as well . As with the solar system, it's often impossible to witness something over the course of one person's lifetime. However data can be observed and analyzed to warrant likely assumptions. Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas.
"Science Provides Evidence for the unobservable via inference. The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years" .
* CONCLUSION PART 2 *
Atheism describes the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
As science continues to explain more about how the universe works, there is less need for a "God of the gaps."
In order to prove that atheism is unscientific, Pro will have to use the scientific method or some other scientific criteria to explain why atheism does not qualify. But in science, we can't affirmatively know or assert something until we've empirically proven it. Without any affirmative scientific proof that God DOES exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism ("I don't know because I don't have any data").
Agnosticism = I don't know if God exists, while Atheism = I don't believe that God exists.
Without any data FOR God, there is no reason to believe IN God -- thus atheism is a logical position.
At the very least, Pro hasn't proven that it's an unscientific position.
Seeing that the argument of a God is imperative to this Subject, I would like to 1: See Con prove that God Isn't real, As Darwinism tells us that No God is existent, nor as it created us, and 2: prove to me that Life can come from Non-living entities.
If indeed, all Molecules have came from Chemicals, and all that we are made up of is chemicals, than how did the first cell reproduce? Let me explain further my argument: Assuming that you are right, and living can come from Non-living, upon creation this "Living" thing would have no knowledge. I do not mean Knowledge as we have, but Recorded information within it's DNA, and the know-how on how to reproduce. You cannot create something with a chemical soup, or a zap of lightning and expect it to know how to reproduce unless it was pre-programmed.
According to what Con would like to think, a simple self-copying molecule was made in a primordial soup. This does not however, explain how complex compounds such as DNA came into existence, as we have no proof that DNA an be created from simple self-replicating molecules, nor can we explain how our own minds record Information and DNA.
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.
Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.
New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.
Aside from Evolution by Natural selection, We can't observe Evolution.
As Con said, We can conclude things about different universes with mathematical formulas. To observe is to see in action. We can plainly see the mathematical equation in Action, as math has always existed and is the same all across our universe and beyond. There are no Mathematical equations explaining evolution, nor are their un-disputed facts to back it up. Math Doesn't lie, but every single "link" in the Darwinist chain has been highly disputed, and there still is evidence that The theory of Evolution could be false. Gravity is a Law, Not a theory, as we know that their are two motions: Push and Pull. If space constantly pushed things in, then every planet would become a giant target, as all asteroids would be pushed into these "Divits" in space. Pulling is the only possible explanation for our placement, and predicament, therefore it is a law. The same can't be said for Evolution.
Onto my proof that a God is infact real. The Following is an excerpt from an article. I will provide the link.
It is impossible that Christianity is not God's revelation of truth to man. Simply impossible. The math proves it beyond question. It doesn't take faith to believe that one plus one equals two, and it doesn't take faith to identify the religion which has mathematical certainty in its corner.
God didn't have to give us mathematical proof of His existence, but He did it anyway. God didn't have to give us proof of Christianity, but He chose to do so. And God didn't have to give us proof of His love for us, but that is exactly what He did. The proof is irrefutable.
I live in Nebraska where I serve as a pastor. Imagine someone covering this entire state in silver dollars 6 feet deep. Then mark one coin and bury it anywhere across the state. Next, blindfold a man and have him choose one coin. The odds that he would choose the marked coin are the same odds of getting 8 prophecies all fulfilled in one man. God gave us about 300 fulfilled prophecies in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Here are 8 of those 300 prophecies:
(1) The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-6)
Pro begins the final round by questioning how the first cells could appear from non-living entities and reproduce. While the answer is speculative, theoretical biophysicists at the University of Tokyo say they might have the answer. "Their model holds that one of the two molecules reproduces much more slowly than the other, but this molecule would also last much longer than its counterpart before breaking apart. This means that a single working example of this molecule could sustain generations of the other molecule, providing some security for the system... When the molecule copies itself, it and its copy slowly drift apart, providing lots of space for the other molecules. These then form a cloud of fast-reproducing molecules around the original, slow-replicating molecule. Between these clouds, space opens up in the solution, segregating the different units and providing a natural mechanism for protocells to emerge... From these humble origins, protocells could eventually turn into more complicated structures, and life could begin. " .
Another popular theory is the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that precursors to life as we know it were RNA molecules that could self replicate (reproduce). These RNA molecules supposedly evolved in to life in the DNA/RNA/Protein world via an intermediate stage of ribonucleoproteins. The reason why RNA could have preceeded DNA based life is because it has the potential to carry information and to be the catalyst of its own synthesis .
There are credible scientific theories that seek to answer this question. Just because a theory has not been definitively proven or accepted does not mean one of those theories is not correct, or that another scientific theory cannot be found. The question is does "God" alone withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method or other criteria for measuring scientific validity? No. On the other hand, I have explained why Natural Selection indeed has.
Pro writes, "The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory instead of a law." That is patently false. "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be" .
"Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them" .
Pro's next contention is that new variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. This is irrelevant to the resolution. Science does not have to create an entire new species (whatever that means) in order for Evolution via Natural Selection to hold water.
My opponent then claims that because there is no mathematical formula that describes evolution, it doesn't qualify as being observable.
"Evolution is anything but random and there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:
p" + 2pq + q" = 1
Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"
The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:
1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population
1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.
2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.
3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.
4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.
5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.
6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.
7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times" .
Furthermore, not to be ignored is the Price Equation as a possible mathematical equation for evolution .
My opponent then claims God is definitively real, and uses sources from Biblical scripture to back it up. However this is fallacious circular reasoning or begging the question. First Pro commits the fallacy of circular reasoning here:
P1. The order and magnificence of life is evidence of God's Creation.
P2. Therefore, we know that God exists.
He assumes that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's creation of life" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Biblical scripture as supporting evidence is circular for the same reason:
P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.
P2: The word of God is infallible.
C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible.
P3: And as such, the Bible must be the word of God.
P4: The word of God is infallible.
C2: Therefore the Bible is infallible, etc.
Please extend my previous round's conclusions along with my arguments on microevolution and the observation of evolution. Pro repeats that macroevolution has not/cannot be observed, but I've already explained why what has been observed and how that can be applied to infer other facts at the macro level. Pro drops these contentions and repeats his arguments which I do not have the character space to repeat, but which I have already addressed. I've outlined how the majority of scientific discoveries have been observed via INDIRECT observation (along with cited numerous examples) much like evolution. My opponent has dropped these arguments.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|