Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation
My argument is fairly simple.
I am arguing the statement that "Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation", from a scientific standpoint, which states that "Evolution is the absolute science of the earth's origin."
I will be debating against this statement in three points.
2) Complexity/Beauty of the world.
3) The act of random.
And also a minor fourth point: Early scientific revelation found in the Bible.
I will be using secular scientific sources and contrasting them against the other obvious science, Creationism.
I would like to thank glowingdisco for the opportunity to debate. I will debate the position that Evolution makes more sense than Creationism. To correct the Con, the scientific standpoint is that Evolution is the process life uses to create diversity of species. As for the origin of the Earth that would fall under Cosmology. I’m open to arguing both but I believe that it would be simpler to keep the Evolution vs Creationism debate isolated to Evolution, and not needlessly expand it to Cosmology unless you view it as critical for your argument.
To make things simple, I will be arguing from a standpoint of creationism which involves the origin of the world and how things work, (from a secular standpoint, evolution and cosmology).
he Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expandingrapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to beconverted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, thecosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type a supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densitiesand temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
And yes I copied and pasted that from Wikipedia. That is just a summary, a very brief one of the supposed Big Bang Theory.
1 What was afrom the beginning, what we have bheard, what we have cseen with our eyes, what we dhave looked at and etouched with our hands, concerning the fWord of Life—
2 and athe life was manifested, and we have bseen and ctestify and proclaim to youdthe eternal life, which was ewith the Father and was amanifested to us—
3 what we have aseen and bheard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our cfellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1: 1-3)
I’d like to thank the con for opening. I’ll start off by summarising my opponents opposition to Evolution and Cosmology.
1) Science, Cosmology and Evolution, only answers how, and does not answer why.
2) The watchmaker analogy, but with an iPhone.
3) Creationism and Evolution are just unprovable theories.
4) We cannot observe the big bang, or evolution.
“Why” is a wonderful scientific question. I suspect the reason for the abuse of the word why is rooted in the dismissive hypocritical response Richard Dawkins, and people like him, give when confronted with it. All of science is rooted in that simple question of “Why”. It was Darwin who asked the simple question of “Why do all these finches have different beaks?” that lead to the Theory of Evolution. Just because Cosmology, and Evolution are good descriptions of how things are does not exclude them from being a part of the answer to “Why we’re here?”. Good examples would be “Why do we have five fingers?”, or “Why does the Earth orbit the Sun?”. Those are both good, and valid, questions for an Evolutionary Biologist, and a Cosmologist respectively.
As much as Science is unable to answer the Leibniz’s Philosophical questions of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Creationists are at a loss to answer it as well. To phrase it another way. Why is there a God rather than nothing? I’ll warn you now. Dismissing the question with God “just is”, and is “supernatural” would be no less hypocritical, or ironic than Richard Dawkins dismissing “Why do we exist?”. The only truthful answer to it is that we don’t know at this point in time, and as long as there are unanswered questions Science continues in the pursuit of those answers.
Your analogy using iPhone is just a rephrased version of the watchmaker analogy. It’s interesting that you’d use it because it’s a bit ironic. In order to understand the flaws you would have to understand the prerequisite for Biological Evolution. In order for Biological Evolution to occur an organism must be able to self replicate, and occasionally change between generations. For some organisms this self replication is called Sexual Reproduction, and requires a minimum of two parents. For others, Asexual reproduction can occur where there is only one parent like in the case of bacteria. It should be obvious at this point the primary problem with your analogy. If you put two, or any combination of, iPhones in a box you’ll never get them to reproduce a new iPhone.
The irony of your claim that iPhones didn’t evolve is that they did evolve. It’s called the evolution of technology. iPhones may not be able to reproduce on their own like biological organism, but they are reproduced by us. Each time the design is modified and sent to the market sales figures help determine which traits survive for the next generation of phone. This may sound like a good argument for Intelligent Design, but that would neglect biological sexual, and asexual reproduction as the primary method for biological reproduction.
It’s odd that you would claim that the Big Bang is an unobservable event. Unless you’re going for a deeper philosophical definition of observable there is a problem with your claim. When I observe a pen fall what I observe is the light reflected off of the pen. Because light does not move instantly the light is only a reflection of the past state of the pen. Because the Universe is so huge the big bang is still be observable. The earliest observable part happens to be the MBR, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is used to date the age of the Universe. We can even see the earliest formed galaxies with the hubble telescope. What is unobservable is anything prior to the big bang. This is all possible because the speed of light is not instant.
YEC, Young Earth Creationism, is a falsified hypothesis. I asked that you narrows which Creationism you were going to argue for your own good. When you made the claim that Biblical Creation could have happened in any period of time you contradicted the YEC claim. YEC claims that the earth and the whole of creation was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. They also claim that the earth and all of creation is only 5 to 10 thousand years old. Your particular argument falls under Day-Age, or Gap Creationism, and not YEC. I would suggest you read some works by Ronald Numbers because he’s the leading historian on all versions of Creationism.
Your claim that Evolution cannot be observed is also false. If you had stayed focused on the past you might have been able to play a semantics word game, or a deep philosophical debate about the nature of reality, but you dragged in the present into this. To name a few of the organisms that have been seen evolving: the peppered moth, three-toed skinks, italian wall lizards, cane toads, and lets not to leave out all those nasty hospital thriving bacteria. I find the three-toed skinks to be the most interesting because it’s a lizard evolving the ability to give live birth. Arguing the evolution of the past can be a bit tricky because of the fuzziness of the fossil record, but the present is another story.
As a programmer, my favorite demonstration of evolution isn’t biological evolution. You simply take the rules for biological evolution, and apply them to computer program. This is called a Genetic Algorithm, and when applied to Artificial Life it gives us a way to watch evolution on fast forward. My personal examples are probably far too complex to understand in a short period of time, but HSW has an excellent example that you can run yourself. In as little as ten generations you’ll see an artificial life form go from hardly being able to move to zipping around eating all the food it can in its little world.
Big Bang Cosmology, and Evolutionary Theory are Scientific Theories because they are observable, and have falsifiable tests to their claims. Falsifiable meaning that if a test of a claim came back negative the Theory would be proven false. Creationism, on the other hand, is cluttered with falsified claims, and claims about the supernatural that are unfalsifiable. Falsified meaning that they had a test to their claim, ie the age of the Earth, and were proven false. Unfalsifiable meaning that no test exists that could be done to falsify it.
Thank you for your patients.
Funny thing is, you pointing out the irony of my iPhone illustration proves my point. I did not say iPhones do not evolve; they do not evolve on their OWN, without an outside force, without a greater brain behind the process. The evolution of technology would be nothing without a human brain operating and observing the process. The illustration was that iPhones could not evolve on their OWN, just as it is silly to say the earth and humans evolved on their own.
Yes, I am also aware of sexual and asexual reproduction. But to back up your claim, are you saying that the first organisms were fully developed and had the potential to reproduce? No, they had to have come from somewhere, some type of energy. Where did the first organisms come from? Either you are backing up the belief of spontaneous generation or you are prepared to give me an answer of how you believe the FIRST ORGANISMS got here. It's all guesswork.
And evolution cannot be proven with peppered moths and three toed skinks. You cannot prove that it's a lizard evolving the ability to give live birth. If its evolution occurs over a longer period of time, no one who says this is going to be around to witness a lizard give birth live. It's only guesswork. It could be a mutation for all we know.
Now, to my next point.
Complexity and Beauty of the World.
This also kind of falls under random as well.
How in the world is this world so complex and beautiful? Look, all around you, beauty and sheer complexity. Look at the human eye and wrist, how complex it is. How could all this all happen on its own.
Back to the iPhone. Yes iPhones evolve, but they don't evolve on their own, with no outside force. So take the world, and take animals and human beings (which are much more complex) and say that this all got here on it's own, evolving over time, with no outside force. On it's on.
Now do you understand how silly it sounds? It isn't scientific, it's pure common sense. Lots of people take scientific facts, to make the world sound all complicated but it really isn't. Don't let the facts consume you. Just look around you,
The world is beautiful because God made it that way. I'm not going to go into detail and go all Bible on you, but yes to be honest, it is.
And what proof do you have that the YEC is a falsified hypothesis? According to what? Evolution?
Fun fact for you: did you know that modern science was based upon Biblical principles? Isaac Newton, Matthew Muary, John Woodward, John Ray, the list is huge; they were all Protestants. And most of the foundations for science today was based upon them. Ooooh, now what does that say? Where did they get their influence? From the Bible. They knew that there was something greater than them and they studied it.
And you say Big Bang Cosmology and the Evolutionary Theory are Scientific Theories because they are observable. Just because you notice how light falls off a falling pen proves the Big Bang? Okay bro.
Moving on. To summarize what I'm all saying, it all goes back to the iPhone. Nothing as complex as an iPhone could evolve without a mastermind behind it. So how silly it is to say that the same thing happened to the earth.
You contradicted YEC when you claimed that the 7 day creation could be any period of time. Presumably, you did so knowing that the Earth, and Cosmos, can be proven to be several order magnitude older than the 5 to 10 thousand years YEC claims it to be. If you want proof you only need to look at the stars, and pick one that is between 5 and 10 thousand light years away. Are there any Stars being created by supernatural means 5 to 10 thousand light years away? No, and that’s why YEC is provably false, among other reasons. Unless your think you can come up with a reasoned argument for an instant speed of light, or want to argue about the nature of reality there is nothing you can do to support YEC claims.
Your argument for the worlding being beautiful so God created it is circular reasoning, and is a logical fallacy.
When someone provides citations for their claims it is in your best interest to read them. If you had read citation 7 you would know that you can indeed see the three-toed skinks evolving the ability for live birth in the present. You don’t need to wait millions of years.
The demand that I backup the belief of spontaneous generation, or answer how the first organism occurred is a false dilemma fallacy. Research into abiogenesis is far from complete, and claiming spontaneous generation because God exists would only be circular reasoning.
Equating the evolution of the iPhone to the evolution of man is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy. iPhones evolve by being reproduced, and changed by people. People reproduce, and change via sexual reproduction. As a note sexual reproduction results in crossover mutation in every generation without the need of supernatural intervention. Simply put, half your DNA come from your father, and half from your mother resulting in a near unique combination every time. Even though there are similarities your iPhone example is fallacious.
Your fun fact about the heretical Newton, and other scientists is also an appeal to authority fallacy. Neither does his heretical denial the holy trinity make the opposite true. If such fallacies were true then why not use Euclid. Arguably all of math, and science is built upon his work. Should we all believe the way the Ancient Greeks did prior to adopting the Christian Bible? Or how about Pope Benedict the XVI who sides with Evolution?
I believe this debate really comes down to another false dilemma pushed by Richard Dawkins, and creationists. That dilemma is that you either pick God and Creationism, or you pick Evolution. Theistic Evolution is chosen by Catholics, Anglicans, and other theists, and it is still Evolution, and not Creationism. There is no reason to side with the nonsensical logic of Creationism that has been presented.
glowingdisco forfeited this round.
In the end we must ask ourselves what makes more sense. A world where we doubt our observations, or a worldview where we only state what we can test and observe.