The Instigator
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Evolution is not atheism

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 4 votes the winner is...
Lexicaholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,577 times Debate No: 8447
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

diety

Pro

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution is not atheism.

:)

I humbly await my opponent's arguments
Lexicaholic

Con

My opponent states that "[a]theism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]" This statement is similar to saying "Crime is the taking of life or the damaging of property. In the broadest sense, crime is proscribed antisocial behavior." My opponent has posited a disjunctive definition of atheism, as I have of crime. In my definition either an act damaging property OR an act taking life would amount to a crime. In my opponent's definition, either the position that deities do not exist OR the rejection of theism will amount to atheism.

Theism within the confines of Wikipedia, the source my opponent relies on, is stated to be "in the broadest sense [...] the belief in at least one deity. [...] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[...]Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." See http://en.wikipedia.org...

Once again, Wikipedia provides multiple meanings for the same word. As my opponent has provided only one definition, that of atheism, I am free to define theism as the more specific use of that word. Namely that theism "conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." Because atheism may mean the rejection of theism, by means of simple substitution, atheism may be understood to mean "rejection of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." I believe an argument can be made that evolution is, in fact, atheism, under this definition.

According to the definition provided by my opponent, "evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[...] Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."

Note the language used in this definition. Within this framework of evolution, speciation CAN occur. Not may, or could, but CAN. New organisms CAN come into existence without divine intervention. This definition therefore rejects the act of creation as the exclusive domain of the almighty. Rejection of God's participation in any part of the process of creation amounts to the rejection of God as personal AND active in the governance AND organization of the world, even if only to a limited degree. We are not, however, debating limited degrees. Pro has stated that evolution is NOT atheism. Not even a little bit. Well, I have clearly shown it is.

My opponent may try to argue that it is 'atheistic' and not 'atheism,' as the difference between a noun suitable for substitution and an adjective that is merely descriptive. He would argue this because he might claim that atheism is a belief where as evolution is a conceptual model for understanding the natural world, and that a conceptual model can thus spring from the belief and the belief would merely be descriptive of it. However, one must remember that evolution is a belief, according to Wikipedia, because "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." http://en.wikipedia.org... In the Wikipedia article from which my opponent argues, evolution is considered to be true. The article even begins by stating that evolution IS change in the genetic material of a population of organisms. It does not state that evolution is ASSUMED to be such change. Because the definition my opponent provides does not accept the possibility of falsification, evolution, within the context of this debate, is a belief. That belief is atheism.

As a side note, why won't you just accept Jesus into your genome? ;)
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

Forfeit noted, argument extended.
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

Forfeit noted, arguments extended. Additionally, I would like to clarify my argument above for those who just want the cliff notes version:

1. Evolution = belief that something other than God is involved in organizing a part of the universe.
2. Atheism (as defined by opponent's sources) = belief God isn't exclusively involved in organizing universe
3. Evolutionists believe that God is not involved in one aspect of creation. Therefore they believe that creation is not exclusively controlled by God. Atheists believe that creation is not exclusively controlled by God.
4. Therefore Evolution = Atheism.

Oversimplification: The same way that a Catholic and a Mormon can both claim to be Christians, evolutionists who ascribe to my opponent's definition of evolution can claim to be atheists.
Debate Round No. 3
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

My opponent has failed to respond throughout the debate, conceding it to me. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Isn't it ironic how diety doesn't believe in almighty deities?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I'd be PRO, but...
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Hey, keep in mind that I've needed significantly more grammatical consideration than my opponent! On a scale of mistakes to words used I'm pretty sure I'm okay! XP
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
"ascribe to" should be "ascribe to themselves" or "subscribe to" in the last argument."

Nice try but you just lost my grammar vote!
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
"ascribe to" should be "ascribe to themselves" or "subscribe to" in the last argument. Not that it matters, as my opponent is not actively debating me.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Can't wait for you to respond. Here goes nothin'.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Well, this will be a challenge. Considering the obvious auto-win situation, would I be free to make any observations I wished, provided they did not conflict with the information (through Wikipedia) you presented initially?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Duh... the same can be said that Intelligent Design is not Christianity.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
"I humbly await my opponent's arguments"

LOL. That's very humble of you to create an auto-win for yourself. Though, Tarzan has a point.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Until the wealth of Evangelical Christian vote bombers show up.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
dietyLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
dietyLexicaholicTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
dietyLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
dietyLexicaholicTied
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