Evolution and Science Require Faith
Debate Rounds (3)
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, 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 .
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
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.
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. 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.
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. 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 . 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:http://www.youtube.com...
AceAlwayz forfeited this round.
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|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||7|
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).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.