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

Evolution and Science Require Faith

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 42663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Well, the main question asked in Science is how this universe began to exist. However one of the following 2 things had to have happened in order for anything to exist. Either something has eternally existed or came into existence from nothing. Both of which are logically impossible to us because, scientifically, everything has a beginning, and a cause. Therefore everyone, whether creationist or atheist needs faith and has faith. If there was no need for faith to believe in God, everyone would believe, which is the same if you don't believe in God. If there were one absolute truth to every individual, there would be no need for faith. We all have faith because we believe differently.


My thanks to my opponent for starting this debate, I wish him luck.

As my opponent has not made any formal terms for this debate, I am assuming he has started his primary argument; but in case this is was not his intent, I will provide a brief summary of my argument rather launching into something large.

Faith, the belief of something not based on proof[1], and stands opposed to what science is and how it works. At a fundamental level, science and via association Evolution (which is part of science) is an investigation into the natural world based on evidence and experimentation [2].

Science does not "beleive" things, it does not have "faith" that something is true; for anything to be scientific it must demonstrate that the process, mechanism and theory match the facts and provides useful testable predictions. What is accepted by science is what can be demonstrated, theories are not held as absolute fact but as simply our best understanding of the nature of the world with the facts we have. For this reason many scientific theories have been overturned[3]

While the questions you raise about the origins of the universe are completely valid questions. They are metaphysical and religious questions. These are not questions that science even attempt to answer for very reason that they cannot be tested, and we cannot obtain objective facts about them.

As a result, until such statements about the underlying root cause of the universe can be empirically tested and validated, it will forever live outside the realm of science.

Debate Round No. 1


I apologise, as I have made a mistake. Science means Knowledge and should not require faith, however, the point I was trying to make is that some aspects of science are not facts. Such things are considered scientific, however they are not factual and therefore cannot be as they require faith. The whole point of Science is that it requires no faith, therefore Evolution isn't part of Science. My mistake, however, if you believe that evolution does not require faith, I want to just add that every piece of factual evidence for the theory thus far, has been disproved. IT THEREFORE REQUIRES FAITH, HOWEVER IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACT, PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO WHENEVER YOU'RE FREE!!!!


Ignoring the fact that my opponent appears to have conceded the debate, I will continue.

Some aspects of science are not facts.

This is indeed correct. Many aspects of science are facts these are primarily concerning repeated observable and empirically measured evidence.[1] Such observable evidence does not require any faith to believe in.

These are then explained using scientific theories; an explanation that offers testable predictions, the ability to proved wrong and is generally well corroborated by both evidence and corroborated with repeated testing.[2][3]

Theories are only ever tentative, as new evidence can always be provided in the future (and has in other theories), that contradict the theory in the future.[4] This is for the very reason that we can only be as sure as the evidence can determine.

Because scientific theories ARE evidenced based, they do not require the faith my opponent implies: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" as they are not believed without question; but are all considered provisional. Even then best supported ones.

This includes Evolution, which is well supported by genetics, morphology, atavism's, vestigiality, repeated experimental testing and validation [5]. Evolution is only well believed because it is well supported by all the evidence.

As this discussion was about Science requiring faith and not specifically Evolution, I do not feel this is a valid to this debate and instead will simply present a point by point rebuttal of Hovind available in the following link:

Debate Round No. 2


AceAlwayz forfeited this round.


As my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will not add any further comments other than to clarify my previous remark:

"As this discussion was about Science requiring faith and not specifically Evolution, I do not feel this is a valid to this debate and instead will simply present a point by point rebuttal of Hovind available in the following link."

I misspoke here, as this is about both science and evolution. It would have been more apt to say "not specifically about the intricate details of evolution" which my opponents hour long video was considering without citing any specific part or portion as evidence or source indicating evolution requires faith. As a result of this and the 2000 word limit on this debate I felt it more appropriate to link the appropriate rebuttal to my opponents video (as he makes no specific claim about faith and evolution) rather than try and squeeze such a rebuttal into a tiny number of words.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Oops. Made a mistake. It was about evolution, I will deal with evolution more in the next round :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clean sweep for Con. Pro's arguments aren't cited, his argument not very convincing, and he concedes the debate in round 2. Remember, the topic is not "evolution requires faith," which appears to be the debate Pro wanted to have, though I find his arguments lacking there as well. It's "evolution AND SCIENCE require faith." Since Pro concedes that science doesn't require faith, Con automatically wins on convincing, though he didn't need that help, as his arguments are solid. Aside from that, his conduct was better as he didn't forfeit any rounds, or even add arguments after the forfeit by Pro (Con win on conduct), Pro's sentences are sometimes unclear and several are written in all caps (Con win on grammar), and Con was the only one with sources, which were reliable (Con win on sources).