Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme
Debate Rounds (4)
I will take the PRO position and BoP is 100% on me.
In accepting this debate you are conceding to the fact that we live in an entirely physical realm and that through science, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing else exists, as your CON position asserts that we evolved from the simplest organism to the most complex being imaginable. They don't make computers as powerful as the human brain.
The metaphysical entities presupposed in science, you therefore understand to be 100% of material origin. You also concede good science relies upon there being an existing order of logic so that we may know truth, and the presupposition of mathematical truths. In your opinion, these must be purely physical entities, otherwise you have defeated your own position.
Good luck with proving logical and mathematical truths are material in essence and being able to prove that to me.
I confirm my position that evolutionary 'science' therefore is tautological (in terms of rhetoric) in it's nature and cannot even justify it's own existence using good science.
I accept and I want to clarify some things.
"I will take the PRO position and BoP is 100% on me." Okay.
"In accepting this debate you are conceding to the fact that we live in an entirely physical realm and that through science, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing else exists" Agreed, but just to make sure: I also believe in the conceptual (which does not really exist in the way physical things exists). I believe that the conceptual is based on the physical (no concepts can exist without a brain to contain them).
"as your CON position asserts that we evolved from the simplest organism to the most complex being imaginable." I get your point, but let me just say that we are not the most complex thing IMAGINABLE.
"You also concede good science relies upon there being an existing order of logic so that we may know truth, and the presupposition of mathematical truths" Agreed.
"In your opinion, these must be purely physical entities, otherwise you have defeated your own position." No, they are conceptual. But if you're going to say that I concede defeat by saying this, then simply disregard what I just said. This should not be a problem since this debate is about EVOLUTION, not the physicality of concepts.
"Good luck with proving logical and mathematical truths are material in essence and being able to prove that to me." Once again, this debate is about EVOLUTION, isn't it? Moreover, you agreed to take 100% of the BoP.
Let's get this debate started!
So firstly, I put it to you that,
1. the theory of evolution invokes such an emotive response in people that it cannot be possibly be considered as a scientific issue at it's heart. Would I debate you on a scientific issue such as gravity, or the existence of DNA, the workings of the solar system etc? Ask yourself that question. I think you and I would both say no. I read debates and comments and on this issue and there can be some of the most insulting and ridiculous statements I've ever read. As said, any ad hominems in the debate will not be tolerated. Therefore by careful observation of this fact alone, I know it to be an issue of faith or in another way, the true object of it is to teach atheistic materialism, and the small amount of research done is just a cover to make it sound like science. So, if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, walks luck a duck, it must be a horse, ooohhh sorry duck. That's better :-) Damn evolution.
Fortunately my schooling was of such an impartial nature, that I did not have to be indoctrinated with this claptrap. Taught science, yes. Good science, I believe so. Creation and origins, absolutely not. It was moot. It was so self-evident to me, it did not take much for me to laugh at evolution as a concept really. As I stated adaptation and natural selection is not on this table for debate, because we would both agree. Also, imagine how hard you have to work in your mind to prove it even to yourself, and continue fighting it. Good luck with that. I don't have to try very hard at all to believe in God.
2. if I can conceive an idea of good science, then necessarily it exists. It's not hard to do. We investigate things to find objective truth everyday in our own lives, and we know how we do it. Logic. If you doubt objective truth exists then you are deceiving yourself like many others. Why would you be on this forum otherwise? To berate creationists? No. That's just your little bit of fun to show yourselves how superior you are intellectually. But unfortunately in doing that, it is also your downfall, and I will show you why in a moment with a classic example of may be one of your heroes.
3. does evolutionary theory fit this idea of good science that I have through using logic? No. I will provide proof of this by the way. If it's not good science, then automatically it must be bad science. Bad science, I think you will agree, should not be taught as fact to anyone, let alone small people in state sponsored education.
So, let's look closely at the issue of religion firstly here. I'm sure you know the definition of it and naturally you must concur that materialistic atheistic Darwinism is most definitely a religion. Dictionaries don't lie. Religion is a world view, a system of beliefs and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Wow really, I just thought it meant pesky creationists and that God business. No, categorically not. There are competing religions of course, but religions all the same. Following that you must concur that to believe something you cannot ultimately observe or prove takes faith.
I believe in God creating the universe, creating everything in it, it's species as individual kinds, and we are the uppermost being in that divine creation, as we are created with the ability to know it, sense it and ultimately prove it to ourselves through reason and logic through the human mind. If you deny logical absolutes exist, you are deceiving yourself only. Yes, I have faith and good reason for it. What do you have?
Ok,I hope you may be able to reason with some of those items. As I said, I could quite quickly settle this, but I want you to think a little more about your position. Thanks and good luck
Hi bigtown. First of, whether or not I am a scientist depends very much on what qualifies as a scientist; I am currently studying engineering so I believe I am studying to become a scientist (not the labcoat version though). However, I am not a biologist and my studies regarding evolution are relatively shallow compared to that of actual biologists. That being said, this subject interests me greatly and that is why I enjoy debating it.
"I previously said that we won't go into all the wonderful scientific terms and what this or that scientist did and this holds" Does this mean that I am not allowed to quote any research or biology textbooks?
"It provides a framework to ensure results are not misinterpreted and therefore better able to be understood and you move closer to the truth." I mostly agree, although I would point out that this process is not infallible.
"With that said, I think I can successfully defeat your position quite quickly, but I won't." Oh, okay.
I will now address your points one by one.
"the theory of evolution invokes such an emotive response in people that it cannot be possibly be considered as a scientific issue at it's heart" In virtually 100% of cases, the emotive responses are coming from people who are against the theory on a PHILOSOPHICAL basis and for religious reasons, both of which have nothing to do with science. Science studies what is, not what ought to be.
"Would I debate you on a scientific issue such as gravity, or the existence of DNA, the workings of the solar system etc? Ask yourself that question. I think you and I would both say no." I don't get your point, are you implying that since there are debates about evolution it means that it is not science? Fun fact: Newton's theory of gravity is wrong; it made predictions which turned out to be false (about the way Mercury orbits the Sun).
"the true object of it is to teach atheistic materialism" This is easily refuted: There are many theists who believe in evolution (1). Some of them even TEACH evolution (Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, etc.). There is nothing in the theory of evolution that even ADDRESSES the idea of God.
"the small amount of research done is just a cover to make it sound like science" You are dangerously approaching the "conspiracy theory" argument.
"As I stated adaptation and natural selection is not on this table for debate, because we would both agree" That IS evolution. You basically just said that you accept evolution.
Accepting evolution was actually quite easy given the enormous amount of evidence. And I don't doubt for a second that you find it easy to believe in God; faith is extremely easy.
"if I can conceive an idea of good science, then necessarily it exists" If you mean that the IDEA exists, then I agree (although the existence of ideas is a very weird concept).
I do believe that objective truth exists. I am not here to "berate" creationists. I think your last sentences is missing a couple of words; I am having trouble understanding it.
"does evolutionary theory fit this idea of good science that I have through using logic? No." Actually, yes. And I agree that bad science should not be taught as fact.
Here is the definition of religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (2). According to this definition, evolution is NOT a religion (especially if you believe that it is atheistic).
"Following that you must concur that to believe something you cannot ultimately observe or prove takes faith" If "observe" includes all methods of detection and measuring known to mankind, then I agree. That is why God requires faith and evolution does not. Evolution has been observed numerous times and is supported by the fossil record and DNA evidence; it provides accurate predictions and it is easily falsifiable (and yet has not been) and that is why it is considered good science. God has not been observed, it does not provide any accurate predictions and is unfalsifiable which is why it is considered bad science when it is considered science at all.
"I believe in God creating the universe, creating everything in it, it's species as individual kinds, and we are the uppermost being in that divine creation, as we are created with the ability to know it, sense it and ultimately prove it to ourselves through reason and logic through the human mind." That is a nice assertion, do you have any evidence to back it up? And could you define kind AND give an example of a kind?
"If you deny logical absolutes exist, you are deceiving yourself only." Did I deny their existence?
"Yes, I have faith and good reason for it." If you have good reasons, then you do NOT need faith. The problem is that you do NOT have good reasons which is why you DO need faith.
"What do you have?" Evidence and science.
I eagerly await your responses.
Ok I'll rebut a few items, but I won't include your texts here ok.
I don't think you will need any text books for this debate I assure you. Sorry, this is when things start going wrong unfortunately.
Agreed, nothing is infallible, but good philosophy is a good framework.
1. So are you saying science does now not rely on good philosophy, as I think you are saying. Which in essence is bad.
2. Correct, there are debates because the very purpose of that science is in essence promoting atheism, and that is religion and I will show you why. Fine, Newton is wrong, does it it try to attack the very essence of being human? Scale please, how has that changed my belief in a theistic God?
Your refutation is fallacious I'm afraid. Do I believe something if everyone is doing it? No, that's an appeal to popular belief. Theistic evolution is a weak middle ground position to keep some people happy and deluded and non argumentative. You have proved my point entirely, if you don't address the idea of a metaphysical being , you are left with atheistic materialism with Marx philosophy, because that is your starting philosophy.
Never heard of that one, conspiracy? Enlighten me on that one.
That's my point about terms fella, it means we start arguing the wrong things. I do not believe macro evolution happens, full stop.
The evidence amounts to miniscule terms of the total human being, You admit that your mind is physical, right? See argument below.
Faith is easy for you, because you want to believe in it so much. I found my faith through using my brain and educating myself.
2. Good science exists out there I'm sure and I have a concept of how it should be done.
I know you're not here for that, but there is an awful lot of abuse thrown down by evolutionists.
Evolutionary theory, falsifiable. Ok, you set up a theory that states man evolved from a single celled organism. You then go about proving it with research. You take a completely unwarranted worldview in your theory, that is bold to start with, no wonder early evidence was can I say, a little on the dodgy side and put out as true. You have attacked the essence of being a human by taking that view, remember that worldview is pure materialism, you assert therefore that God does not exist full stop and you want too prove that to people. What was the scientific problem to be resolved in the first place? you looked at the whole universe, and said, God does not exist and we don't like the Bible. Weren't they biting off a bit more than they could chew with that?
It is not an assertion, it is a well-reasoned claim I make. R3
Logical absolutes, you are denying them by refusing to use them in your argument with yourself for your position.
I hope this argument will do something for you:
You are an atheistic materialist, and nothing else exists. (you think concepts are based on physical sources)
You have an idea of concepts in your mind.
You believe it, and say you know and can prove it is a material source.
Therefore in your mind, the cause is material and the effect is immaterial.
The effect can never be greater than the cause, and the effect can never become the cause of itself. Metaphysical logical truth. Try to prove it wrong.
You engage in debate to learn and change people"s views.
In your material world view, that is therefore logically impossible. The effect now causing the cause? I think not
Therefore you actually believe you can do the logically impossible by typing words on a screen.
You therefore think you are in effect a god, even greater than God, because he can"t even do that.
That is your religion and more importantly the source of your own atheistic self-delusion.
You want me to believe your fallacies by typing words on a screen
If I was easily deceived or an illogical person, I might.
But I"m not, so don"t try the impossible :-) sorry
So, why do you think you can change people"s immaterial minds that are in your opinion only material, without being anywhere around me? Which chemical or element is it? Tell me how in evolutionary terms it works please. If you haven't asked yourself that question, you are not thinking about your beliefs. I know mine because I can think.
I love to know the world around me and how it works, and science is great, and there's fantastic clever people doing it well. Evolutionary science as a doctrine is killing all that goodness and making me frustrated. It's not science versus religion, it's atheism versus theism. By promoting it you are destroying the very essence of good science, I assure you.
Thanks, and I hope to get your third round rebuttals soon. I will have another argument against your position in the next and to follow up with your religion definition. I will show you why.
Thanks and look forward to R
Hey bigtown, I am well thank you and hope you are too. I will also rebut a few of your points, but I will include your texts for clarity.
Before I start, I would like to point out that you failed to define the term "kind" and failed to give an example. I would like you to do so in the next round.
"So are you saying science does now not rely on good philosophy, as I think you are saying. Which in essence is bad." Wrong. I am only saying that rejecting the FINDINGS of science for philosophical reasons (in an ethical sense) is NOT good science. However, I believe that philosophy should be used in order to increase the "power" of the scientific method; the importance of falsifiability (Karl Popper), for example, is an excellent example of a philosophical addition to the scientific method. One could even argue that the whole scientific method is a product of philosophy.
"there are debates because the very purpose of that science is in essence promoting atheism" Once again, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God.
"Fine, Newton is wrong, does it it try to attack the very essence of being human? Scale please, how has that changed my belief in a theistic God?" This is exactly what I consider to be bad science: rejecting a theory because of its sociological implications. As I said before, science addresses what is, not what ought to be. The fact that a theory challenges your belief in god is irrelevant to the theory itself.
"Theistic evolution is a weak middle ground position to keep some people happy and deluded and non argumentative." These people would most likely disagree with you on that.
"if you don't address the idea of a metaphysical being , you are left with atheistic materialism with Marx philosophy" Marx's philosophy? How is this even remotely relevant? I am not a communist by the way.
"Never heard of that one, conspiracy?" When you say that researches are being conducted in order to "COVER" some hidden atheistic agenda, you are alluding to a conspiracy.
"You admit that your mind is physical, right?" I believe that my mind is DEPENDANT on my physical brain. Why do I believe that? Because when the brain gets damaged, the mind is often also damaged.
"remember that worldview is pure materialism" I would say naturalism, SCIENTIFIC naturalism, which is not to be confused with philosophical naturalism.
"you assert therefore that God does not exist full stop and you want too prove that to people" No no no no no. Even though it has nothing to do with evolution, I still need to address this: atheism is NOT the assertion that there are no Gods, it is the rejection of the claim "There is a God".
"you looked at the whole universe, and said, God does not exist" If you are referring to atheism, then no. If you are referring to scientific naturalism, then yes; we must reject the supernatural explanation in order to investigate the natural world efficiently. However, this does not mean that we are asserting that the supernatural does not exist.
"we don't like the Bible" I plead guilty as charged, I do not like the Bible.
I am refusing to use the logical absolutes in my argument? Do you know what the logical absolutes are?
"You are an atheistic materialist, and nothing else exists" I am an atheist and I apply scientific naturalism in everyday life, but I am a lot of other things too.
"Therefore in your mind, the cause is material and the effect is immaterial" Not necessarily, it can go both way. What I see affects what I think and what I think affects what I do.
"In your material world view, (debating) is therefore logically impossible. The effect now causing the cause? I think not" How is "debating" illogical? The cause is the words I use and the effect is the change of mind. How is the effect causing the cause?
The rest of this paragraph is completely nonsensical and devoid of any argument. I am pretending to be greater than God because I engage in debates? Are you saying that the All-powerful God is unable to debate?
"So, why do you think you can change people"s immaterial minds that are in your opinion only material, without being anywhere around me?" As I said, mind are not material, they are DEPENDANT on the brain. What do you mean "without being anywhere around me?"? Are you saying that your computer is immaterial?
"Tell me how in evolutionary terms it works please" I have indeed asked myself that question, but unfortunately I do not know the answer.
"Evolutionary science as a doctrine is killing all that goodness and making me frustrated" Evolution is not a doctrine.
"It's not science versus religion, it's atheism versus theism." You're right, it's not science vs. religion, but neither is it atheism vs. theism. If anything, it's evolution vs. not-evolution and nothing else.
"By promoting it you are destroying the very essence of good science, I assure you." I would argue the opposite, that by denying evolution, you're denying good science.
I await your answer.
No, I'm not going to define evolution for you, as you as the expert never do for me or change it when it suits. That's THE problem unfortunately. However, when I was walking around the British Library the other day, I heard a reference to Darwin being made. It was a school teacher telling children that they learned about Darwin when they learned that they all came from dinosaurs and monkeys. That is not a lie, I promise you. So, in effect I now have a conceived idea of it in my mind of it, yes. And no, I didn"t imagine it.
Kinds - I think you have a generally conceived idea in your mind otherwise you would not have dismissed it in your mind already. So that definition you dismissed in your mind is probably the one we both generally agree on, and it"s irrelevant for this debate. You have picked the tiniest element in my statement and tried to make a point of it. Nice try.
Your point on Newton. Ok, I think you understand where I'm coming from this, it's just circular reasoning and you have unfortunately again proven it to me. Remember scale is so important, and WHY would science challenge my belief in God? You have proved my argument here and should therefore forfeit this debate really, but I won"t ask you too because I am learning.
Agenda? I was inferring that in totality the science has proven possibly only a very small amount of total human evolution. Why? Because of the mind aspects, that's all. Which in my opinion is the biggest part if you want to get me to believe in the theory.
Your mind is dependent upon your brain, so therefore you are saying the source is material, Ok so my main argument that you did not refute in any logical way, still stands. So are you saying mentally impaired people, because of their physical brain damage, do not have a mind or conscience? Are you serious? What evidence do you have for that? I honestly feel pretty bad if that"s your concept or belief. I would think to change your chemicals if I were you. If you are not aware of the Chinese Room argument to prove that, look it up straight away.
If you expect me to learn or change my views (debate) by typing words on a screen and deny the very existence of my mind then yes, you are in effect deluded. If it's material in source then how can you possibly do it? That's my point exactly.
Absolutes - things that are aware to everyone - building material for discussion and debate to establish a fact, or well-reasoned belief in something. Get to know them.
You have in effect deconstructed my argument and selectively picked premises and conclusions that you want to refute or don't like and have made completely illogical assumptions on them. It looks so ineffectual. You have every right to believe what you want of course, as do I. I"m not going through them here by the way. You can reread my argument again.
Lastly, this is why you are on very shaky ground here
Atheists - they deny the existence of it, but conceive it's there. Else, what's to deny? Ref:Eminent professors of evolutionary biology should really therefore not write books slapping God in the face. He sat on a branch in an evolutionary tree (well there"s some debate about that) and has sawn off the very branch he was sitting on. It's so bizarre come to think of it, and he dares to ridicule the Bible and its believers? Possibly over 4,000 years of human history, philosophy, debate and discussion on the subject of God, turned on its head by a man who believes a flying spaghetti monster exists in his head.
Do you honestly want me to believe a person like that and the theories he propounds? I honestly ask, would you? Do you now know why I"m asking this? I am sick to the stomach of watching creationists and Christian believers being ridiculed in public. That"s why. My opinion and my right to believe what I like, without fear of being discriminated against in that way. I think we call those self-evident rights, don"t we? I think it's not a worthy occupation doing that to have either.
If you're outside tonight, look up and thank the big man for how he made you. He loves us all the same.
God bless, and thank you for such a great debate. You have been a very admirable contender. Let's do another one.
Hi bigtown, I am sorry that you were disappointed about my last round, I promise I will try to do better in this final round. I thank you for not forfeiting this debate early. I personally do not think that my reasoning is circular, but without any support for that claim, I am afraid I will not be able to rebut it. And have no fear, I have no intention of using ad hominems; I only use them when my opponent uses them, but you have been respectful so I have no need for them.
"No, I'm not going to define evolution for you" I know full well the definition of EVOLUTION, what I was asking for is the definition of MACRO evolution, which has no scientific definitions. Some creationists define it as "change from one kind to another", but KIND does not have a scientific definition either.
"I heard a reference to Darwin being made. It was a school teacher telling children that they learned about Darwin when they learned that they all came from dinosaurs and monkeys." Do you have a problem with teachers teaching their student about science? And we did not evolve FROM monkeys; we ARE monkeys. Humans are a subset of monkeys which in turn is a subset of apes.
"Kinds - I think you have a generally conceived idea in your mind otherwise you would not have dismissed it in your mind already. So that definition you dismissed in your mind is probably the one we both generally agree on, and it"s irrelevant for this debate." The problem is, I actually do NOT know what the definition of kind is and that is precisely why it MATTERS to this debate; as I said earlier, some creationists define macro evolution as a change from one kind to another, but their failure to provide a definition for that word is a problem. If a kind is defined as a SPECIES, then macro evolution has been observed countless times (including by me). If kind is define as a higher rank of biological classification (such as genus or family) then "one kind to another" is not evolution.
"Your point on Newton. Ok, I think you understand where I'm coming from this, it's just circular reasoning and you have unfortunately again proven it to me." Obviously we are going to disagree on that, but without any justification, I can only leave at that.
"WHY would science challenge my belief in God?" I honestly don't know because a lot of people believe in both science AND God.
"I was inferring that in totality the science has proven possibly only a very small amount of total human evolution" Actually the evolution of man is very well documented (I direct to my past debates for the sources).
"Which in my opinion is the biggest part if you want to get me to believe in the theory." I understand that the question "how could we evolve a mind?" is a big issue for you and I perfectly understand that. It is indeed a big issue. Unfortunately, I personally do not know the answer, but a gap in a theory should not be used as a pretext to reject it; "we do not know yet" is not evidence against evolution.
"Your mind is dependent upon your brain, so therefore you are saying the source is material" The source of the mind? Yes most likely.
"So are you saying mentally impaired people, because of their physical brain damage, do not have a mind or conscience?" Not at all. I am saying that an alteration of the brain (through damage) will almost always result in an alteration of the mind (1). If I hit someone on the head, do they not lose consciousness?
I am not very familiar with the Chinese Room argument, but I know enough to know that it is basically a semantic debate around the definition of the word "understanding" and whether or not machines can actual "understand". How is that relevant? Machines are not biological entity. I would also point out that John Searle (the guy that came up with this) believes that "brains cause minds".
I do not and have never denied the existence of minds.
"If (mind is) material in source then how can you possibly (change my mind)?" By debating. Computers are material entity and spoken words are vibration of molecules.
"Get to know (the absolutes)" The law of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. I am fully aware of their existence and I do use them in my debates.
There is literally nothing for me to address in the two following paragraphs. You started by criticizing my method of rebuttal and then went on to invalidate scientists that right books "slapping God in the face", which is a non-sequitur. And no one actually believes in the FSM. Moreover, atheists are being ridiculed just as much (sometimes more) then Christians.
It was great debate indeed. Thanks for allowing me to participate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by macaztec 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took 100% of the BOP. Pro then proceeded to make outlandish claims about what evolution was (something to promote atheism). Con effectively refuted the few points that Pro attempted to make. Pro did not at all try to answer any of the points that Con made. I gave conduct point to Con because he asked Pro to clear some statements up and Pro refused.
Vote Placed by Enji 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempts to misrepresent evolutionary science as a means to teach atheistic beliefs; this is incorrect and Con corrects Pro on this point, citing the fact that numerous evolutionary scientists are religious. Con accurately states that evolution (and really science) takes no stance on the existence of God. Pro disagrees; he claims that by not addressing the question of the existence of God, you are left with atheistic Marxism - and hence it's taking a metaphysical stance on the existence of God. Con argues that rejecting science because philosophical disagreement between religion and evolution is bad science, and that evolution studies the physical. Arguments to Con.
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.