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

creationism is not backed by science like evolution

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 68488
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




creationism is not backed by science like evolution or the big bang theory. con will try to argue that creationism is in fact backed by science like evolution or the big bang theory.



Some creation proponents argue that the big bang theory and evolution are processes of creationism. Therefore, this opening argument is ill constructed. Certain views of creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Views of creationism and the logical opposite, atheism, do not necessarily depend on one's view of evolution.

The big bang theory does not satisfy the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The big bang is a theory that explains a portion of how the process may have happened, but it does not have anything to do with what creationism claims. How did the transition of nothing (meaning "not anything", no properties at all) to all that there is come about? So, the big bang could very well have happened, but that does not in any way argue against creationism. It could have been a process that a deity used to create all that there is.

At this point, I would argue that the argument is already lost because creationism and evolution are not necessarily considered opposites. However, I would like to take the debate to a different level and consider the unlikelihood of macro evolution.

To what degree has science supported that macro evolution is a fact? I would argue that in order for there to be strong support that evolution is the likely process that caused the universe to come about, there cannot be any major unexplained issues in the explanation of the process. (I am now using the word universe to mean all that there is, which can also include the multi-verse scenarios.) I would like to name a few issues here. I would point to a lack of a unified theory in abiogenesis (non-living to living matter), the inability to explain the origin of many celestial bodies including stars, etc., and the lack of an explanation of large gaps in molecules-to-man evolution, as major issues that cause macro evolution to have a lack of support. Even if the abiogenesis problem is solved, the gaps in molecules-to-man evolution are not explained. The fact is, there are far too many gaps that we currently have to be able to conclude that evolution is the vehicle of how the universe arose. In my next argument, I hope to expound on these evidences to show that macro evolution has major problems that it must overcome before we can conclude that it was the vehicle for how the universe arose. Even if it is the vehicle, it does not follow that creationism is invalid.

Before I continue, I will give my opponent a chance to respond, so I can know where he/she would like to take the argument. In my second argument I hope to develop the problems with evolution in more detail, unless my opponent chooses to argue in a different direction.
Debate Round No. 1


Cre·a·tion·ism noun \-shə-G6;ni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect


Creationism cre·a·tion·ism

Pronunciation: /krēG2;āSHəG6;nizəm; data-src-ogg="  " target="blank">;
Definition of creationism in English:NOUN
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

According to two well known dictionaries, it is implicit that these two things are in fact opposites. Con has no evidence to back up his claims or evidence. Con is trying to argue for the theistic revolution, which are views that "regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."
Most of Con's claims are invalidated due to the fact that creationism and evolution cannot coexist. Therefore, i have not won this debate.

Science supports macroevolution because macroevolution is a part of the scientific theory of evolution. Scientific theory is based upon extensive evidence. Some evidence for macroevolution include fossils of homo erectus and homo neatherthalensis which have very close ties to humans. I don't understand what con describes as "large-gaps" but i suppose. My argument is creationism is not science based, it is almost entirely faith based. To con's question of how did something come from nothing is answered with scientific theory, it all came from a singularity that exploded and became our modern universe. Any other scientific critique he threw at me is already solved for in science. science is dynamic and changes as we learn more and more. I believe this debate is already won, con failed to understand what creationism truly is. His "creation proponents" are part of the theistic revolution aside from the ideas and beliefs of creationism.



The topic for this debate is titled, "Creationism is not backed by science like evolution." In the topic, I take creation to mean all or any theories of creation with the following definition to encompass all. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. The dictionary definitions shared by Pro only point out that there are indeed creation views that object to evolution being the process for creation. I need only to mention current creation views that include evolution to show that there are creationism views that include evolution. And Pro has already done some of the work for me in his wikipedia link. In that link the article discusses theistic evolution. Which is exactly my point. There are evolutionary views of creationism. I am unsure about what Pro means by a theistic revolution. Theistic evolution is the link that he/she provided. Again, this illustrates that there are views of creation held and well established and even defended by well known Christian debaters (William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, etc.) that claim that evolution is the vehicle that God used to create the universe.

Pro claims that evolution and creationism cannot coexist. My question to Pro is, why can't they coexist? What is it about evolution and creationism that makes them incompatible? Creationism concerns itself with the origin of the universe. There is an entire branch of science called cosmogony that concerns itself with finding the origin of the universe, which means that how the universe originated is still unknown according to scientists. Science does not currently have an answer for how the universe arose. According to scientific research, neither theistic evolution, non-evolutionary theism, nor some other view that does not involve theism has the full support of science to determine the origin of the universe. So in response to the topic title, currently science does not definitively back any view of origins. We are left with models that have a lot of problems. This is fine. It does not discard science. It is our current state. However, we can look at which theories are more plausible. The origin of the universe had to come from something that exists out of necessity of itself (meaning it is impossible for it not to exist). Since everything that we know about the universe is contingent on something else, there is no reason that the universe exists out of necessity of itself. Therefore, a transcendent cause is needed to cause the universe.

As for the singularity, my question is, where did the singularity come from? First of all most physicists believe that the singularity is a mathematical idealization rather than a physical entity. Even if you do take the singularity to be a real physical entity, the next logical question is, where did the singularity come from? It isn't eternal in the past. It hasn't always existed. It ceases to exist as soon as it comes into being. So, my question for Pro is, How did you explain the origin of the singularity? The singularity, if it were real is considered to have properties. That is not nothing. Nothing has no properties. Why would it just pop into being from nothing?

As for my earlier comments about abiogenesis, the origin of celestial bodies, an gaps in molecules to man evolution, I'll take the time here to expound on my previous comments.

In current scientific study, there is no unified agreement on how non-living matter produced living matter. This is widely known in the scientific community, just as there is no unified agreement on the origin of the universe. The fact is that we simply don't know how non-living matter transitioned into living matter. There are several theories, but currently all of them have problems. Maybe an answer will be found out in the future, but currently Darwinian evolution is stuck at this juncture, as evidenced in the scientific journal Nature ( If there is any unified answer in the future then great, but currently evolution is faced with a big problem before it can be considered fact instead of a theory.

Secondly, I mentioned that according to evolutionary theory, we do not know where many of the celestial bodies originate. See the following quotes from several secular astrophysicists:

"The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." (Lada, Charles J. and Shu, Frank H. 4 May 1990. "The Formation of Sunlike Stars." Science 248:564)

"If none of us knew in advance that stars exist, frontline research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form." (Tyson, Neil DeGrasse, 2007. Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries. New York:W.W, Norton and Co., P 187)

I could quote more. The only recent attempt at an explanation of the formation of the first stars is dark matter. However, scientists do not know what dark matter really is. So, how could it explain star formation?"

In order for the big bang model to work, evolutionists need dark matter and dark energy. However, they don't even know what dark matter and energy is or how it works. Many claim that dark matter does all of these amazing things. However, if its makeup is unknown and no one knows how it works, how can it be a trustworthy component of which the evolutionary model depends? They don't have a solid basis in physics.

New York Times Magazine said this in an article on dark matter and energy "What is dark energy? The difficulty in answering that question has led some cosmologists to ask an even deeper question: Does dark energy even exist? Or is it perhaps an inference too far? Cosmologists have another saying they like to cite: 'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,' meaning dark matter, 'but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,' meaning dark energy." ("Out There," New York Times Magazine, March 11, 2007).

Without dark matter and energy the big bang model doesn't even get to planet formation, much less all that comprises planet earth.

I could provide quotes from reputable secular scientists in reputable journals and magazines about macroevolution's difficulties in galaxy formation.

"Nearly a Century after the true nature of galaxies...was established, their origin and evolution remain great unsolved problems of modern astrophysics." (West, M.J., Cote, P., Marzke R.D., and Jordan. A. 1 January 2004, "Reconstructing Galaxy Histories from Globular Clusters." Nature 427:31-45.)

Lastly, there are problems with molecules-to-man evolution. There are no occasions in observable science where one type of animal transitions into another. Bacteria is still bacteria, fish are still fish, etc. I challenge Pro to name one of these transitions (one type of animal into another, a fish into something else)? First of all, Pro's claim that neanderthal man is an evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, there is a certain portion of scientists that believe that neanderthal is simply a form of human (

Currently we don't know how the universe originated, we don't know how the first stars formed, we don't know how galaxies formed, we don't know how planets formed, we don't know how non-living matter became living matter, and we don't know how that living matter transitioned from that of a molecule to ourselves. Evolution is largely inconclusive. My point in these gaps in evolution is not that evolution is impossible. It may very well be the method that God used in creating the universe, as theistic evolutionists claim. My point is that there are many gaps in evolution to definitively conclude that evolution is the process that brought about the universe.

In my next argument, I would like to show scientific evidences that indicate that it is more plausible than not that creationism is the best explanation for how the universe arose. Namely, the fine tuning argument and other evidences.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has created his own definition of creationism with no further evidence to support it. Current creation views are not in fact creationism, current creation views are of the offshoot of the idea of thiestic evolution aside from contemporary creationism. We are here to debate creationism, not whatever interpretation con derives. I am not here to debate why God could have created evolution, i am here to debate why creationism is not scientifically supported. Creationism has very little to any scientific evidence to support it. Creationism may be the answer to how we came about but that neglects the fact that you cannot scientifically support it like the big bang or evolution. The singularities origins are still being debated about among the scientific community. There are many theories on how abiotic substances became biotic substances. Evidence includes
where they created organic compounds using lightning and a mixture of primative substances that would have been found before earth.

To explain how molecules became man, we must realize that these changes occurred very gradually, over the spans of billions of years. The evidence you have provided is incredibly biased as implied by the name of the website (institute for creation research). Neanderthals according to much of the scientific community is a separate species, the scientist you mention are of creation research and may have to be accounted for bias.

Yet again, Con, i'm am not trying to point out why evolution is perfect. I am trying to point our why evolution is justified by the majority of science, that is a fact. Creationism yet has pointed out much of these "gaps." also if he tries to present new evidence in the final round, that is incredibly abusive to debate since the final round is mainly reserved for rebuttal and conclusive species aside from new evidence.

To conclude, I would like to point out the the fact that con has been constantly pointing holes into scientific theories and has never proposed reasons why or how creationism is scientifically supported. If in the event that he does decide to present these reason in his final speech, you must vote pro otherwise your supporting bad debate practices. According to credible definition of creationisms, there can be no creationism if there is evolution, they are distinct. My opponent throughout this debate has been arguing for theistic evolution, not creationism. My opponent therefore is not on topic and because he is not on topic, there is no point in him giving his final speech since he will be arguing for something i am not debating against.


"Creationism is not backed by science like evolution." This is the title of the debate. I'm sorry for Pro's frustration that there are views of creationism that include evolution as a vehicle for creation, but he/she should have defined the topic better. If he meant something else, then he should have stated something like this, "Young earth creationism is not backed by science like evolutionary models." Creationism can encompass many views. What of the views of deists, Muslims, Hindus, and many other religions that have views on creation? Creationism is a broad term. I feel that I have provided evidence to support that creationism can include evolution. Since Pro likes to use wikipedia as a source and is still claiming that I provide no evidence that evolution is included in creation theories, see the following source for a description/definition of creationism ( In a debate like this one where my opponent has chosen an ill constructed topic to defend, all I needed to do was give an example of a creationist view that uses evolution to show that this position cannot be defended. In my previous arguments, I believe to have demonstrated that creationism and evolution are not opposites. Therefore, I will let my address of this topic rest there.

In my opening argument, I said that I will not only address the topic of the debate, but I will address what I believed that Pro was trying to argue. If we are going to talk about debate etiquette, then I should say that whether you meant the topic to mean more than was said or not, you have to stick with the topic you stated. With my first argument I addressed creationism in general. You provided nothing but the topic in your first argument. You should have developed your argument. That is why it was your first argument. You simply stated an ill constructed topic in your first argument, thus wasting the first round.

In the second round I showed that even if Pro were to prove that evolution and creation where incompatible (and he wasn't), there are some severe problems with evolution that call into question whether evolution is the method for life. Notice that I did not say origins. There are no even relatively agreed upon theories that account for the origin of the universe. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. This is not me changing definitions. "ism" means a practice, system, philosophy, or belief and "creation" we know. Thus, belief in creation.

As far as scientific evidence for creationism, I pointed in round two to the fine tuning argument. This argument states that the conditions necessary for life to form are so astronomically improbable, that it appears impossible for it to happen by randomness. The opposite for creationism (theism and creationism go hand in hand) is atheism, which implies that the universe was caused by nothing at all and then developed into it's current state with all of the complexities necessary for life to exist. The complexity of the universe points to a designer. With creationism you have a designer to initiate and develop the universe. With atheism you have nothing (not anything, not properties). I don't mean only space or energy. I mean absolutely nothing. This belief is worse than magic. At least with magic, you have a magician. With atheism there is not anything that can explain how the universe arose. So the scientific evidence that creationism has is the entire universe and all of the complexities that have been discovered about it. Not only is creationism the most plausible, its the only game in town. Atheism offers literally nothing. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether the universe was created or not. The fine tuning and all the factors cannot be even a little different or life would not exist. This points to the universe being created.

In his/her last argument, Pro threatened to scold you if you choose to vote for me because he/she then will accuse you of promoting bad debate practices. As far as debate etiquette goes, a initiating debater must stick with his initial topic and all that it entails, whether he likes the reply or not. The first round was wasted by determining what Pro actually meant in the topic. And I wrote my limit in the second round.

Ultimately I would like to ask that you vote for me for two reasons. Firstly, Pro stated a topic that does not have two logical opposites. The universe can be created by means of evolution. Secondly, I would ask that you consider a vote for Con because of the overwhelming complexity and unlikelihood that life could form in the universe, but it did. If someone won the lottery one time you might say he got lucky. If someone won the lottery 50 times. You would conclude that the lottery was rigged. That is the type of probability that we are looking at against life existing in the universe. And yet here we are.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gannon260 1 year ago
you do realize that the first round is reserved for acceptance speeches right?
No votes have been placed for this debate.