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

The Theory of Evolution Supports The Existence of a God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 24755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




As pro I will be arguing that the theory of evolution by natural selection , defined below, lends support to the existing of a deity or god who has created or shaped the world.

ev·o·lu·tion [1]
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

god [2]
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

The first round will be for acceptance.
Round 2 will be for opening arguments
Round 3 will be rebuttals and any further argument
Round 4 will be for further rebuttal and closing arguments/conclusions.

Let the games begin!



I accept my opponent's definition and this debate. Thank you for sponsoring such a topic that has such an interesting spin on an old debate.

My only caveat is that I'd like to define "support" to mean "provides evidence for". Basically, I want to ensure that we aren't simply establishing that evolution doesn't disqualify the existence of a God, but provides positive evidence for.

Again, thanks to my opponent. I look forward to this.
Debate Round No. 1


Before I begin I would just like to say one more thing, my side of the debate will have nothing to do with which god created life, only that evolution supports that it was 'A God'.


Before I go on with my argument I would first like to briefly provide a summary of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Inside all our cells our DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid)creates a code which tells our bodies which proteins or amino acids to produce in order to 'build' our bodies. However every member of a particular species is not identical, so neither is their DNA, this is known as Natural Variation. With in a species there may be more then one of the same gene, for example different people have a variation of the gene for eye colour, telling the body to make it either Blue, Brown, Green, etc.. These alternate forms of the same gene are called Alleles.

Natural Selection is the process whereby an environment will 'select' the members of a species who's alleles make them more suited to the environment. The animals with favourable characteristics will be more likely to survive longer and therefore more of their genetic code, or DNA is passed on to the next generation.

The First Life

The first reason why evolution as a theory gives credence to the notion of a god that intelligently designed all life on earth, or merely shaped it's development, is that somewhere along the line, DNA had to come into existence. Most scientist now believe that it evolved from an earlier, similar structure called RNA (ribose nucleic acid).[1]

The structures of both of these involve the joining together of four complex nitrogen bases (they differ in both DNA and RNA) with sugars. For life have been possible, all of these ingredients would have to randomly bond together in a coherent fashion to form a whole, then more and more must join before you can even begin to think about the complex organisms we know so well today. [2]

Building a Tower

Before you build a tower you must first lay the foundations. You need to have all the right materials and the right tools to put them together. The same can be said with life. While I believe the notion that a god created all creatures great and small and then just let them run around as they pleased is completely incorrect, the idea that god started to build life, rather like the construction of a tower.

The first thing needed were the materials, RNA and later DNA, materials that were capable of building life and also altering it themselves through mutation, which I will cover in more detail later. Next, much like an architect designing a building, it was necessary to know what sort of life was desired and so testing begun. A god would have manipulated DNA in different ways to get new results, new species or creatures. Continuing to use the tower metaphor, models would have to made and structures tested to ensure they were sound, this is where natural selection comes into play. Variation in a species can be thought of the different, models, they would have been crafted, by evolutionary changes in their DNA building blocks, and then applied into a certain environment to determine what worked, and what didn't.

Stepping Stones
The original single celled organisms and bacteria didn't need to become for complex, they could have survived fine the way they were. But they did change, and that suggests that evolution is not all natural, that there is a force behind it, driving it to become bigger and better than a simple bacteria, bacteria does not yearn for greatness, intelligence does.



Thanks go to my opponent for his time, this is my first debate with less than 8,000 characters, so let's see how I do.

Pro technically said that this round is for opening arguments, however the nature of the debate is such that I can only respond to arguments for the proposition. I cannot argue that evolution does NOT provide any evidence for God without addressing some sort of argument, therefore I will spend my time refuting my opponents positions.

My opponent's argument is relatively simple, but unfortunately it is also a logical fallacy. Pro is utilizing an appeal to ignorance. On top of that, he's appealing to an ignorance that we simply don't suffer from, similar to but not nearly as bad as Bill O'Reilly claiming that you can't explain the tides.

What my opponent has claimed is that there is no way for evolution to begin through natural processes, and that therefore some sort of divine source must be required in order to begin the process. Technically, I could point out that my opponent is not citing abiogenesis and not evolution. Pointing this out would mean that, to the exact definitions he provided for the debate, he hasn't made a single argument for his case, but I'm going to let that slide and pretend that abiogensis and evolution are the same. I mention this so that my opponent and any other viewers will understand that there is a distinction and not to confuse the two.

Now I said that this is an appeal to ignorance when we in fact are not so ignorant on the matter. While it is true that we don't perfectly understand the mechanism behind abiogenesis, this is not to say we don't have a general idea of how it could occur naturally. The always wonderful potholer54 explains this quite well in the third part of his "Made Easy" series, which you should be able to view within my posting here. I submit this video as evidence that abiogensis could have begun without the intervention of any sentient being. I will quickly go over the points for those that don't wish to watch it. My opponet's argument rested on the belief that RNA would have to form randomly; which is inaccurate. All you need is a self-replicating molecule, a much more simple entity that could easily have come together through basic chemical processes of the primordial earth. Once you have that molecule, nothing afterwards is "random", but is being driven by natural selection, and through several other steps along the way, organic life is later formed.

Now, while we do have that explanation and it removes any necessity to appeal to a god, much less is needed to refute my opponent. As I said, his entire argument is built upon a logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. His argument is "we don't know of a way this could have happened, therefore, God". This is not a good argument, as is one of the main reasons Intelligent Design overall fails. An illustration:

Imagine you are with someone who has no concept of wind. For whatever reason, that concept has not yet been discovered. Outside the window they see a plastic bag floating around, seemingly at random. To them, nothing they can see is moving it, so they conclude that it must be some divine power moving it. How, without discovering the mechanism behind it, could you discern that it is in fact a natural phenomenon? Is it wise to assume that every unexplained thing is the domain of a supernatural entity? My opponent's argument only makes sense if we are to assume that the default position is always "God did it" until we completely explain everything, but I see no reason to grant this assumption, especially since that assumption has been proven wrong so many times over on so many different things long held to be impossible to explain.

Unless my opponent can show that it is logically impossible for any and all self-replicating molecules to come into existence through natural chemical processes, then he has absolutely no argument to rest upon. Thanks you.

Debate Round No. 2


ObiWan forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited his round. Probably scheduling conflicts or simply a matter of forgetting, it happens to the best of us. I see no reason to present further argument at the time. There is still an additional round for him to present arguments and rebuttals, and I look forward to that time.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all, my apologies for missing the last round of debate. This website is relatively new to me and as such I haven't effectively been able to give it time amongst other things I have going on. Still, I should have know better, so again, my apologies.

First of all, I feel I must address the ultimatum that was made to me by Con at the end of his argument. To be honest it has taken some thinking through, but I eventually came to the conclusion that it was rather inappropriate. To the topic for debate her is not whether or not God created this or that, and it certainly is not a debate about whether or not it is POSSIBLE for all these things to happen by themselves and I will concede that this is scientifically possible. HOWEVER, the topic at hand is whether or not these seemingly random changes in organisms that leads to them being more suited for an environment can provide support for the fact that a deity exists and has a hand in this and I can still say, with the utmost certainty, that it does.

Cons insightful video told us simply that chemicals can bond together to form more complex chemical makeup's and eventually some are even able to replicate themselves. Does this in anyway subtract from proof that a God may have designed these chemicals to do exactly that? I think not.

To continue on with my tower metaphor, once and architect has designed a building does he himself build it? The answer is no. So why must a God do the same? The architect may, from time to time, guide the builders and contractors to best fulfil his direction, but he (or she, I hate it when I'm accidentally sexist) does not actually take part in the construction.

However I would like to move away from this now because as con did point out, I am bordering on abiogenesis, although it is in itself the foundation for evolution to take place and therefore should be considered a part of the process.

To consider the diversity of life on this planet is absolutely mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when you consider where it started, random chemicals grouping together. Now my opponent has used the words 'logically impossible' above and associated them with life coming into existence without a 'kick start' from above if you like.

I like that idea so lets apply a bit of logic. Picture this, thousands of years ago a strand of DNA is a monkeys sperm cell was replicating itself and accidentally changed an adenine base to a guanine through innocent mutation. Now, this turns out to alter a gene in monkey to make it's pelvis suited for walking almost upright. This monkey finds it easier to reach food on the ground this way and becomes healthy, passing on this characteristic to the next generation. If that doesn't happen, we don't get humans today. The chances of that one base mutating in an advantageous way are so slim, its more likely to be a harmful mutation (99% are) and it was logically much more likely for it just to stay the same.

Now I'm not using God merely as the go to for something extraordinary happening, I'm saying that when you think about it, this process of evolution through random mutations lends itself to our idea of a God that intelligently designed life on earth. I really hope Con does not try to tell us once again that it is scientifically for this to happen on it's own. That's not the point.
Divine intervention does not subtract from this process, intact when you think about it, it actually allows it to make more sense rather than just a random series of mutations that never should have happened, it actually has a driving force behind it, something to give it meaning. Evolution and God do not contradict one another, the SUPPORT one another, lending to our understanding of each.

Lastly consider this: At the start of this NBA season it was scientifically possible for the Bobcats to win the Playoffs. Common sense must always prevail and deep in everyones minds, this idea dictates everything we do in on way or another.


I am glad to see my opponent return to the debate. Let me address his concerns.

What this debate is about is whether evolution provides proof or evidence of the existence of God. My opponent doesn't seem to realize it, but neither of his two responses have given us a single reason to make such a conclusion. What he has done, is given us reason to consider evolution consistent with the idea of a God. He appears to be confusing the two.

Take his tower analogy. This is nothing more than an explanation as to how God could technically be responsible for life as we know it without having taken part in every last step. Sure, this is possible, my opponent shows how many things are possible but gives no reason to consider one explanation over the other, beyond a blank assertion that it seems better for him.

The closest my opponent gets to an argument is to point out how rare beneficial mutations are and how unlikely it was for humans to actually occur. This betrays a misunderstanding on his part as far as how evolution works. For many, they consider evolution to be an unguided process of time + random mutation, unless you factor in some sort of intelligence. What they often forget, as my opponent seems to, is the implications of natural selection. Whenever a harmful mutation occurs, it doesn't get passed on to the next generation, or quickly dies out. The only mutations that get passed on are the beneficial or neutral ones.

I'd like my opponent and the audience to check out the video I'm attaching [1]. It shows how a computer simulation works in much the same way. Does my opponent believe that God is guiding the program to create the horse-like creature? Or the crab like creature? None of these were intended to be made, yet they mimiced a strategy found in nature, merely because it was an effective strategy that allowed it to procreate and pass on the trait.

There is no reason to add in a God in this equation. There is no reason to consider that a God had a hand in evolution. It is possible, but that's all it is. That isn't evidence for a intelligence.

If God did not exist, and was therefore not responsible for life in any way, in what way would we expect the development of life to differ? I already showed how it is possible, and even likely, that life would develop through the self-replicating molecule.
We see how evolution works, and we see how it requires no intelligence behind it to work, and therefore there is no reason to posit an additional explanation on top of an already sound one. Occum's Razor takes care of my opponents argument quite nicely.

The process of random mutation in conjunction with natural selection in no way requires a God to work, or to begin in the first place. It's possible, but not necessary, and therefore evolution itself is not evidence for God.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 6 years ago
That was just one round. He finished in the end. Last debate I had with someone else, we each forfeited a round.

How did you find this debate if it wasn't on the main page?
Posted by MouthWash 6 years ago
Maybe because he forfeited?
Posted by ObiWan 6 years ago
No idea
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 6 years ago
Why isn't this debate showing up on the main page? Anyone?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pro FF'd a round.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. RFD up tomorrow