The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/10/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 98852
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




My position (Pro) will debate evolution is a uniting agent between those of faith and atheists. Con will take the opposite side of this debate where evolution is not a uniting agent.

Con is welcome to use all rounds in this debate to contend my instigation on said subject.



I accept. I shall wait for you to present your arguments in R2, or else I have nothing to rebut. It is up to you to fulfill your burden of proof.

I am excited to debate this with you, and I will see you in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Con (evanjfarrar) for taking on this debate and I look forward for a mutual learning experience.

I'm sure Con would agree most evolution debates on seems to have the same modus operandi of a clear division between those of faith (believers of some Deity) and the faithless (atheists). But when one looks over a larger scope in time, in units of generational time, evolution is actually moving those of faith and the faithless in a direction of congruence.

The uniting factor between the faithful and the faithless are the laws of nature in which the constructal law (the law of evolution) ( is part of. For example, the faithful and the faithless have the same faith in the laws of aerodynamics when it comes to traveling in a jet soaring above the clouds. One can't deny there are those of faith who despise science but enjoy their iPhones and technology in general. The fact is the faithful enjoy evolution as much as the faithless. Most (the faithful and the faithless) can't wait for the next generation of smart phones, automobiles, even the cure for cancer, etc.; all these are a manifestations of evolution.

My focus is not whether we evolved from some monkey, or if there is a God or not, or arguing about my philosophy is superior to Con's. It would be nice if, this debate ends all debates on evolution because evolution is just another physical law of nature (aka the constructal law). And in saying that, I think it is time to have a debate where both those of faith and the faithless agree and rejoice over evolution; morphing their debates away from evolution and focus their infatuation on whether there is a God or not.

In our modern age, most of the faithful and the faithless have faith in the physical laws of nature. The constructal law is new and part of the physical laws of nature. Therefore, I will argue that “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists,” because the law of evolution is part of the physical laws of nature.


I thank my opponent for the challenge, and I am pleased to get back to debates concerning science and religion!

In this round, I will examine both the current conflict between faith-based groups and the scientific consensus regarding evolution, and the source of this conflict: fundamental differences between the basis of evolutionary theory and faith in general.

1) The Current Conflict, and What It Proves

There is a current conflict between religious organizations and the scientific community regarding evolutionary theory, as many religious organizations refuse to accept scientific consensus. Groups such as The Creation Research Society and Answers in Genesis serve to promote young-earth creationism, among other ideologies, that directly contradict the mountains of evidence which support evolution by natural selection. [1][2]

These creationist platforms often speak out publicly against prominent scientists who affirm Darwinist theory. The recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye serves as a potent example of this trend. The Creation Museum, a project spearheaded by Ham himself (who also happens to represent Answers in Genesis as well), presents a historical narrative which places dinosaurs and humans as existing simultaneously, one which I'm sure my opponent would agree is utterly false.

The effort by these groups represents a post-truth mindset that completely ignores scientific fact and instead upholds a scarily dogmatic worldview. The visitors to the Creation Museum are only victims of this effort, as they are introduced to a completely erroneous version of history which has been created for the sole purpose of complying with ancient Judeo-Christian ideology.

Regardless of how false this narrative is, its very existence represents an effort to further an alternative view to evolution by natural selection, one which undermines the scientific community's effort to present the actual evidence. Thus, evolution has left in its wake a mob of religious fundamentalists who continually deny it and incite unwarranted conflict.

2) Science and Religion: The Perpetual Conflict

Science and religion often seem locked in an omnipresent ideological conflict, one which is inevitable considering the fundamental differences of the two worldviews.

Science is best defined as a rational process. It can be generalized as the means by which we are able to synthesize isolated facts and observations into a coherent, whole understanding of the world around us. A large part of science, thus, is the observations themselves, the empirical basis for this developed understanding of the natural world. [3]

Note that science deals with the natural world, as explained above. Scientists aim to draw conclusions about the natural laws which govern our universe, our reality. The same cannot be said about religion. The most basic definition of a religion is a set of values, a system of faith and worship. [4]

Faith is the most important word in the aforementioned definition, as this is the crux of the abyss that lies between science and religion. Faith is complete devotion which knows no bounds. Even from a Christian perspective, faith is absolute in Jesus Christ, without question. Faith in some deity or another, simply put, is the very foundation of religion as an institution which extends into the present.

The origin of the conflict between science and religion is the gap in rationality between the logical scientific process, rooted in observation and testable hypotheses, and faith, a nonevidential mindset which necessitates devotion to someone or something not seen. It is this gap which makes science and religion impossible to reconcile ideologically. This is not to say that one cannot appreciate science as a religious person. Considering ideology, however, this gap cannot be closed. The fundamental differences remain.


Evolution is a scientific theory, supported by mountains of evidence, and rooted in logic and observation. The scientific community has achieved virtual consensus over evolution's validity, however, religious organizations still contend that evolution is flawed. Evolution by natural selection simply does not comply with their worldview. Yes, there are many religious scientists who believe evolution is true. But ideologically, Darwinist theory, and science in general, cannot be considered compatible with religion. Especially considering the nature of fundamentalist religious organizations today, and their efforts to promote an antiscientific view which contradicts evolution, evolution certainly cannot be considered a unifying force at present.

I await my opponent's response in the next round. Next, I shall respond to Pro's arguments in their entirety.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for the overview on the “fundamental differences between the basis of evolutionary theory and faith in general.” I will refer to this overview as the Darwinian monkey debate. In fact “evolutionary theory” is old school relative to the constructal law (the physical law of evolution) discovered in 1996 by Adrian Bejan ( On a comparative scenario, what Einstein did to Newton, Bejan has done to Darwin; the evolution of understanding evolution.

Con mentioned “young-earth creationist.” Only if those “young-earth” folks use a little science known as time dilation ( With this time relative relationship, they can map their Biblical seven day creation argument of one timeframe or their 10,000 year argument of another (, into billions of years to satisfy the timeframe of current science, the timeframe argued by the faithless; case closed. Such insights are small movements in time, “baby steps,” becomes the “evolution unites those of faith and atheist” concerning evolution.

On the topic of time, let's consider a Generational Time unit (gt) is about thirty years ( Measuring time in “gt” units, highlights the functional relationship of the “Generation Gap” ( being part of cultural evolution. In terms of this unit of time, the age of the US is approximately 8.0gts (1776, Declaration of Independence). Cultural evolution according to Adrian Bejan stated in his book “Design in Nature” (

“Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [the constructal law]—a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe—all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth's surface.”

The point Bejan made concerning “vascular architectures” is best illustrated in the following short presentation from the science series “Through the Wormhole”: (

Relative to “good ideas” embracing cultural evolution over time, it was only 13.3gts ago during the Dark Ages where some dominant European church (Catholicism) incarcerated Galileo ( and others. Through religious reformation (aka evolution) Catholicism no longer incarcerates scientists, torture for heresy, etc. Such cultural evolution aligns the faithful with the moral conduct of today's faithless, an empirical data point where “evolution unites those of faith and atheist.” In fact, many Catholic churches are closing their doors today. Is Christianity dying? It seems the Christian faithful are evolving from gothic rituals to singalong gatherings orchestrated by charismatic leaders.

Con stated, “Science and religion often seem locked in an omnipresent ideological conflict, one which is inevitable considering the fundamental differences of the two worldviews.”

In the example relative to Catholicism, over the last 13.3grs the magnitude of this “ideological conflict” no longer includes incarceration of scientists, torture for heresy, etc. a clear direction towards “evolution unites those of faith and atheist,” not some “lock” (unchanging) being “omnipresent.”

On the faith side of those “two worldviews,” the faithful believes God, or some Deity, created the universe and everything in it, which includes the physical laws of nature. Therefore, those laws of nature are simply the handwriting of God. Following this induction, the scientific method becomes the reading of God's handwriting.

On the other hand, man is known to be fallible, prudent caution is served when following philosophies of past ages or studying man's written scriptures about the Divine. One may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets—and, in some cases, God help us all—resulting in “Death, Tyranny, or the pursuit of Failure” going against the “Golden Rule” (, an outgrowth of “unalienable Rights”— the animate interpretation of the constructal law ( And for those of faith, immorally going against God's handwriting.

Whether these laws of nature were created by God or not, is a debate between the claims of the faithful and the faithless. While both parties enjoy the benefits of science, the search for those laws are independent of their debate.

The search for those laws recently found evolution to be a physical law of nature (aka the constructal law). From this discovery, it will be a matter of generational time where “evolution unites those of faith and atheist,” over the law of evolution shifting their future God debate to events before the Big Bang. At the Big Bang event, because evolution is part of the laws of thermodynamics, the “Big” represents pure energy, where the “Bang” is the constructal law mechanics representing the universal scope of evolution. A universal scope of evolution that “unites those of faith and atheist” on so many agreeable levels; the evolution of automobiles, smart phones, the internet, medical, food production, cultural, etc. are all manifestations of the constructal law.

On the other hand, there remains this dysfunctional thread running through the fabric of society lamenting over the Darwinian monkey debate. In generational time this monkey debate will eventually subside. Going forward in time also captured the science fiction imagination in the popular “Planet of the Apes” production, where future monkeys struggled over the same debate, while humans journey amongst the stars. Even in this imaginative scenario, represents a universal implied cycle of “evolution unites those of faith and atheist” over the subject of evolution ad infinitum. One may wonder about such scenario, when the science fiction of past ages became today's reality.

The subtle point of this debate, and why I selected the Category of Education is planting seeds in cyberspace for those who focus on education, to wonder if society could be served better by changing the vantage point from the classical argument of evolution. Such change may reduce the tension between those “two worldviews,” and the diversity of stresses found in other ideologies who lag in reformation, embracing civility taking civil society to new levels moving further from the Dark Ages, expediting cultural evolution in the drive to make this world a better place to live.


I apologize for my delay in posting for this round; technical difficulties at my end are to blame.

I shall respond to my opponent's arguments this round, and wrap up and extend my own arguments in the final round.

Firstly, I take issue with the manner in which my opponent treats the subject of evolution; instead of accepting evolution as referring to evolution by natural selection, Pro instead perceives evolution to be an all-encompassing progressive force, generally representing developments in technology, culture, medicine and more. Pro justifies this view by presenting Bejan's constructal law, which pertains to the natural tendencies of flow systems, as a more evolved understanding of evolution. Not only is this unfounded, but it is a distraction from the subject at hand. Bejan's constructal law provides a basis, a lens of sorts through which we can observe flow in nature. In even the most infinitesimal detail, Bejan states, all flow systems develop to facilitate easiest access. Does this relate to natural selection? Of course. But does this necessarily represent an evolved understanding of what natural selection is and how it works? No. Bejan is simply applying broad notions of evolution in the most literal sense to explain physical phenomena. This is not an extension of Darwinism, which presents natural selection as a filter through which the evolution of species is veritably determined. Bejan's notion of what is "easiest access" for flow systems is not easily defined nor quanitified, while Darwinism is very clear cut on what natural selection is and how it functions.

My opponent goes on to justify young-earth creationism with the concept of time dilation. Yet again, Pro employs this distraction to mask the fact that conflict continues over the Earth's age. I must digress: I have yet to observe a young-earth creationist actually cite time dilation. Nevertheless, the existence of time dilation as a concept does not detract from the fact that young-earth creationists continue to deny what scientists say the age of the Earth actually is. I do not set out in my arguments to discredit young-earth creationists; rather, I prove that conflict exists between the scientific community and young-earth creationists. The existence of such a conflict has not been refuted by my opponent as of yet; I would argue it has even been acknowledged.

Pro: "through religious reformation (aka evolution) Catholicism no longer incarcerates scientists, torture for heresy, etc. Such cultural evolution aligns the faithful with the moral conduct of today's faithless"

This rationale is meaningless. The convergence of moral standards does not mean that evolution is uniting atheists and the religious in the present. As I have already proven in R2, conflict exists between atheists and theists over the subject of evolution which proves the opposite is true.

It is evident my opponent's arguments about evolution as a progressive societal force undermines the very same resolution he seeks to affirm. Pro claims that the debate over Darwinism will eventually subside (it hasn't, and it's been quite a while), and the transformation of religious institutions will ultimately unite the faithful and the faithless. What Pro fails to understand is that the resolution he puts forth is one that is applicable only in the present, hence "evolution *unites*..." and not "evolution *will unite*..." This debate is about whether evolution bridges the gap between the religious and the nonreligious. I have already proven it does not.

Whether evolution is framed as an panoptic societal force or a natural process which provides insight into current variation in nature, conflict still exists over the issue of evolution. Whether time dilation can be used to justify young-earth creationism or not, young-earth creationists continue to deny scientific estimates in regards to the age of the Earth. Perceiving evolution as a progressive tendency does nothing to refute the notion that unity over the issue of evolution simply does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm glad Con resolve the technical problem.

Getting back to the debate. Con stated, “I take issue with the manner in which my opponent treats the subject of evolution; instead of accepting evolution as referring to evolution by natural selection…”

The titled of this debate is “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheist.” It would seem Con's initial perception of the title was synonymous with “natural selection” unites those of faith and atheist. For that to happen, is the foundation of this debate. That is, understanding the physical law of evolution (aka the constructal law) will help unite the faithful with the faithless over “natural selection” or any other issue pertaining to evolution.

Evolution is all about the freedom of flow seeking the path of least resistance morphing into configuration, which transcends across all domains in which evolutionary phenomena are observed, recorded and studied scientifically includes: Con's “natural selection,” animal design as a function of movement, river basins, turbulent flow, athletics, technology, economics, food production, medicine, culture, governance, etc. Most of these evolutionary domains “unites those of faith and atheist,” in other words, there is more agreement than disagreement between the faithful and the faithless. On the other hand, it seems too much time is wasted over a narrow view of evolution having the greatest philosophical disagreement, socially unproductive and the noisiest, over the Darwinian monkey debate (aka Con's position in R2). Society should “take a timeout” over this issue that is going nowhere.

The point of this debate is not to lament over the monkey issue; but to demonstrate to Con the universal scope of evolution is found in thermodynamics a physical law of nature. Life is a product of those physical laws and we are trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. And on that note, life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. The argument here is not focused on the endless redundant noisy conflict between the faithful and the faithless over divinity; but to embrace the constructive nature of evolution that brings the faithful and faithless together across so many evolving domains.

In our modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor. Even the young-earth creationists are using a pseudoscientific explanation called “creation science” to embrace their philosophy. Such young-earth philosophy compared to those of the Dark Ages would share the same conviction as Galileo over heresy. In our modern day, even the faithful are talking about science in their empirical attempt to rationalize the supernatural. This in itself, is a step where “evolution unites those of faith and atheist” by using science to unlock the secrets of God's nature (faithful) or the laws of nature (faithless).

I will agree with Con there are disagreements between the faithful and the faithless over their philosophies, theories and claims, but only the empirical will be the deciding factor. The subtlety about evolution is simply shifting the God debate between those “two worldviews” having an unpredictable outcome. At the turn of the last century Einstein too had his philosophies, theories and claims about relativity, where it took nearly forty years to get the scientific community to evolve from classical Newtonian. Such evolution was only possible by the evolution within the science of metrology to obtain the necessary empirical needed to verify said claim. It's not that Newtonian was wrong, Einstein just added an evolutionary step in the fidelity of understanding.

In general, evolution across all domains take time but not all evolve at the same rate. For example, Einstein's evolutionary step was on a much shorter timeframe compared to religious reformation, and not all faith based philosophies evolve at the same rate. Even the young-earth creationists are evolving beyond gothic rituals to discovery. The evolution of faith based philosophies are convoluted with cultural diversity, governance, science, and economics just to name a few.

Relative to the evolution of governance, reminiscing over recorded history starting around the time of Galileo's incarceration, 13.3gts ago, to today. Most governance were ruled by theocracies or royalty then, but today, we have a rich diversity from oligarchs to democracies and republics having few theocracies or royalties. A clear example of cultural evolution moving further from the Dark Ages. It was the flow of human rights seeking the path of freedom from the tyranny of resistance that became the continuing struggle, a catalyst in the evolution in new configurations of government. The philosophical evolution relative to human rights resulted in the culmination of “unalienable Rights” defined as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” unknowingly then, but today is the animate interpretation of the constructal law (

In light of Bejan's reference made in R3 relative to cultural evolution in the migration of “good ideas,” the ideas in this debate expands the scope of evolution. Considering Con's narrow focus on biology in the evolution of organisms changing over time via “natural selection.” In this debate expanding the scope of evolution, includes those biological organisms morphing linkages within the mind of Con and perhaps, within the minds of those who critique this debate. Morphing new vascularize linkages of neurons within their brain in the evolution of understanding evolution put forwarded in this debate. Understanding becomes the freedom from the resistance in the struggle to understand.

I feel society will be best served by the constructal law induction in the classroom, helping to place those “two worldviews” in its proper context. Like the laws of gravity, aerodynamics, and other physical laws unites many of those faithful with the faithless in the acceptance and understanding of those laws, and in some generational time, it will be the physical constructal law the law of “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheist” shifting their God debate to new levels. And there is no reason why that debate will ever end, until the evolution within the science of metrology can measure events before the beginning of time or in the supernatural domain.

In closing, I thank Con for the time spend in this debate and in this New Year setting, I wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty,” in the “pursuit of Happiness” within Con's comfort zone, life's “unalienable Rights” the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.


I thank my opponent, first and foremost, for a civil and thought-provoking debate.

I must admit my opponent and I have had very different views on what evolution truly is throughout this debate. Although I have responded to my opponent's definition of evolution via Bejan's constructal law, I have not seen the same response on the part of my opponent. Largely, my opponent's treatment of evolution of natural selection is dismissive, referring to it as the "monkey debate" insetad of recognizing, as I have proven in the prior rounds, its crucial importance in modern-day science.

Whether or not we judge evolution to be as per the constructal law, my opponent has effectively conceded the debate by acknowledging the "monkey debate" exists in the present. This disproves the resolution. I have already explained that my opponent bears the burden of proof- in this case, to prove that evolution is currently uniting people of and without faith. The existence of such a conflict over Darwinism and evolution by natural selection is in direct opposition to the resolution.

I agree with my opponent that evolution as per the constructal law is a sensible worldview to hold. The constructal law, albeit extremely vague, provides us with a framework to predict the outcomes of flow systems. If we hold evolution by natural selection to be a flow system, such a worldview adequately aligns with Darwinism.

However, a problem arises when Pro turns to the future to claim this unison over the issue of evolution. Pro identifies a trend in the use of empiricism to discover more about God or the natural world. Whether or not this trend exists, the conclusion Pro draws from its supposed existence does not substantiate the resolution. The claim that, because scientists and the faithful are converging in their worldviews (as if) does not mean that evolution is an issue that transcends this omnipresent divide between the faithful and the faithless.

"I will agree with Con there are disagreements between the faithful and the faithless over their philosophies, theories and claims"

This essentially ends the debate. Unison over evolution is nonexistent in the present day. Meaningless rationale like "I feel society will be best served by the constructal law induction in the classroom, helping to place those 'two worldviews' in its proper context" does not do anything to substantiate Pro's overarching claim: that evolution is a unifying force.

Yes, the constructal law provides us with a lens through which we can view society as an ever-evolving entity. Evolution can be interpreted as more than just Darwinist evolution by natural selection. But my opponent, in including Darwinism as a part of Bejan's constructal model, ultimately loses the debate; as we see conflict in the present over the issue of evolution by natural selection, the resolution is disproven. Science and faith are locked in conflict, and young-earth creationist organizations continue to push an anti-Darwinist and anti-factual agenda. Relegating this debate to simply a part of the evolutionary continuum only serves to prove my point.

Thank you, and vote Con. The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago

I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you're getting at with regards to sentience, nevertheless I'll try to explain. Evolution by natural selection is a continual mechanism that deals with the acquirement and adaptation of certain traits in order to, for lack of a better term, orient a species toward what is best attained for survival. If what you are talking about is the acquirement of sentience as a trait, I'll preface by saying that sentience as a whole is inherently unexplainable. Certain elements of sentience are subject to scientific scrutiny, yet I would argue the very nature of subjective thought and feeling is not subject to objective meta-analysis. However, there is evidence out there that shows us that other animals, not just humans, experience pleasure and pain, and thus share in this ability to think subjectively.

I find that your point about "producing" a sentient life form is pretty odd. Scientists have not and do not aim to produce sentience. Rather, in order to contribute to evolutionary theory, scientists have examined various troves of data. The fossil record is a notable one, which shows us how macroevolution has occurred historically. The Archaeopteryx fossil, for example, links modern-day birds to dinosaurs, contributing to the mountains and mountains of evidence which, more than ever, prove the validity of evolution by natural selection, macroevolution and all.

But, generally speaking, your points about sentience and microbes and dogs and fish really do nothing to disprove evolutionary theory. Look, there's a reason why a huge majority of scientists approve of evolutionary theory. As I said, there are mountains and mountains of evidence which all point to the same reality: evolution by natural selection is a scientific truth. To be brutally honest, I couldn't care less if that doesn't conform to your view of the world as a Christian fundamentalist. How you feel is irrelevant. The truth is already out there.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
Evolution is false
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
I can't seem to get on the page to allow me to post my argument. I'll try to troubleshoot.
No votes have been placed for this debate.