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

Evolution > Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/3/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 98642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




I'm already in a debate about Young Earth Creationism in regards to age of the Earth and Universe, so I thought I'd make a different debate discussing a different topic; though somewhat related. This topic is about the theory of evolution. Anyone who has an issue with the theory of evolution and wants to discuss it, is more than welcome to come and debate.


Thank you Pro (Spud) for bringing a very important subject to the debating floor. I'm looking forward for a constructive debate complemented with a mutual learning experience.

I'm not sure I understand the title (Evolution > Creationism) other than, according to Pro's first sentence, “… a debate about Young Earth Creationism in regards to age of the Earth and Universe…” I see no debate here with those of faith (aka “Young Earth Creationism”) in any discussion of time (billions of years > seven days of creation), for time is relative. According to time dilation (, seven days in one timeframe can be mapped to billions of years in another.

What brings me to this debate is Pro's last sentence, “Anyone who has an issue with the theory of evolution and wants to discuss it, is more than welcome to come and debate.” The issue being, as stated by Adrian Bejan, “Life and evolution is the most researched and least agreed upon topic in science today” ( And on that note, I (Con) supports evolution as physics and will debate any “issue with the theory of evolution” embraced by Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


Hey Con., and thanks for accepting.

If you're not a Young Earth Creationist, all well and good; it's just that YEC's (and some OEC's as well I guess) are usually the most outspoken against the theory of evolution - it's why I direct my debate towards them. Anyways, we still have a lot to discuss about this even if you're not a YEC or an OEC. As for the debate about the age of the Earth and universe, I am referring to the debate which you made a comment on somewhat recently, (

In regards to your citation, I've seen your other debate which occurred 1 week ago on evolution, so I did manage to read that source last night. I must say, I disagree with you on this. First and foremost, you state that you support evolution and physics; I've read that source, and may I enquire where's the mathematics in this link? There's one small reference to an equation; there's no working out, no nothing... I find this very weird for a statement in which you make that evolution is physics, because physics is all about mathematics, and this journal has none of it. To exacerbate the issue, this journal doesn't have any citations... At all. There's a certain calibre which journals are supposed to achieve and I'm afraid your reference just isn't up to the standard. It hasn't made any impact at all on the scientific community.

What comes next is probably the worst of all of it. To summarise this journal, it's trying to argue for Intelligent Design, whilst trying it's best to not look like ID... No wonder it doesn't have any citations... Intelligent Design was dismissed as an off shoot for creationism [1] - the time for IDers has long since passed.



Thank you Pro for your rebuttal. A correction on your reading my “citation.” That is, my position on evolution is one being “evolution as physics,” not, “evolution and physics”!

The constructal law, like the second law of thermodynamics, are “first principle” laws, or ad initio, whose scope is general and covering a wide range throughout nature where a large set of propositions deducing to sets of theorems, postulates, definitions, or “equations,” etc ( For example, the constructal law governs all flow systems throughout nature, where the equations of the laws of aerodynamics is a narrow focus on flow for systems in flight. Like the flow of air, the flow of water, electron flow, gas flow, thermal gradients etc. all have their own family of laws deducing to sets of “equations” relative to their domain, at the same time, adhering to the constructal law.

The journal article I referenced ( contains no mention to “Intelligent Design.” Perhaps, Pro should read the journal again to rethink your claim where the article is “trying to argue for Intelligent Design.” And on that note, I look forward to Pro's argument. As for “citations,” Bejan's work has over 50,000 (

To be fair, Pro could come to an “Intelligent Design” assumption, being that the title of this debate contains the term “Creationism.” On the subject of “Intelligent Design,” an episode on the Science channel titled, “Through the Wormhole – Did God Create Evolution? – Constructal theory,” covers said subject. This short YouTube segment ( may clear it up for Pro by Adrian Bejan's reply to the following question, “To believe in Creationism it [constructal law] would seem like a mark of a Creator?,” Adrian said, “No. the design is a phenomena, just like the gravitational fall. We do not know why these things happen. All we can do is to summarize these phenomena and those are the laws.” If Adrian was a Creationist, his reply would be far different.

I hope I made my position clear about evolution as physics. I have yet to see Pro's “citation” on the “theory of evolution.” Please state your understanding of the “theory of evolution” so we can go forward with this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll accept that; small typo on my end.

You seem to be under the assumption that just because something is not called ID, that does not mean it is ID. It does not matter if ID is not mentioned specifically, that is what this journal is going for, is it not? If you really don't think that this journal is arguing for ID, may I ask you to explain the below quotes?

"Figure 2. Closed system in steady state (heat flows in and out). (a) Without flow organization (design); (b) With flow organization; (c) Every moving body, animate or inanimate, functions as an engine that dissipates its power entirely into a brake during movement. The natural tendency of evolving design is the same as the tendency toward more power (the engine design, animal or machine), and toward more dissipation (mixing the moved with the ambient).45"

How about another quote?

"The physical effect of evolving design is more movement and greater access for all movers. This is what all the "demons" achieve, including you and I. This is the complete design of all animate or inanimate flow systems, from water flowing in river basins, to animal locomotion and urban traffic, and atmospheric and oceanic circulation."

I mean, what? The above quote can be found under the heading, "The time arrow: Evolutionary design" and it is the last paragraph.

This journal is the weirdest thing I've ever read; it's like someone decided to put ID, physics and evolution in the same bed and see what happens when they're mated together. It's just Weird. Not to mention that the journal seems to be written in such a basic manner. I would like to refer you a few journals I've read in regards to the theory of evolution:

1)"An exceptional Devonian fish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins" ( " - 88 citations
2)"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" - 468 citations (
3)"Dewclaws in wolves as evidence of admixed ancestry with dogs" - 30 citations

Important note: I've given you 3 journals; 2 of which you would need to buy yourself if you want to peruse all of said journal (which I don't recommend buying). Point (2) however, is free to view the entire journal.

That's not a fair assertion at all Con. I came to the conclusion that this journal is ID pretending to not be ID is because I read your source last night. This conclusion is fortified by the quotes from this journal I gave at the start of this rebuttal. Time, after time after time, your source goes on about design this, design that. I'm unsure of how you think that this is not ID, because this journal wallops you over the head with the concept of "design" constantly. As for his statement in video, it really does not matter. He authored this journal, and the concept of design is brought up ad-nauseum in it. Whether or not he answered one question differently (or even similarly for that matter) to other to how other creationists would answer it, is entirely irrelevant.

We could talk about the morphological evidence for the phylogeny of cetacea [1]. Refer to pp 59, Fig. 17 for an example of monophyletic group; see pg. 29 for methods.

Another avenue of evidence we could talk about is avida simulation via the use of Avida-Ed, in order to simulate avidians in a specific environment, to see evolutionary progress in these artificial forms of life evolve when certain parameters are put in place [2] This journal goes over the history of these simulations (starting with Core World in the 90's), and ends off with a discussion of 30 trials and how some of these simulations

I could go on, but I really don't get what the point would be for that; it wouldn't be beneficial for either of us. You obviously accept evolution; you just have some weird conception of evolution as physics (I made sure I typed that correctly this time), because of some random journal which has no citations whatsoever, is poorly written and seems to be some sort of weird mutation of ID, biology and physics.

I thank Con for their time in this debate and look forward to future responses from Con. Even though my eyebrows are raised because Con sourced this journal, I'm actually enjoying myself.



“I'm [Pro] actually enjoying myself.” Good news! I too find learning as fun. As for your infatuation with “ID” (Intelligent Design) please, less enthusiasm. Your reading of ID in Bejan's quotes, where there are none, seems delusional on Pro's part. I'm addressing science in this debate, the physical laws of nature, the laws of thermodynamics and the relative new discovery in thermodynamics known as the constructal law (1996). Also, I find it disturbing about your claim to Bejan's statement about his “No” reply to the god question when you said, “As for his [Bejan] statement in video, it really does not matter.” On that note, I guess what only matters is Pro's philosophy.

As for Pro's philosophy, thank you for sharing a few articles reflecting your stance on “the theory of evolution.” Your version is typical old school classical view of evolution. Relative to the classical view of evolution the best comparative way to describe the constructal law is; what Einstein did to Newton, Bejan has done to Darwin; the evolution of understanding evolution. The incarnation of evolution as physics brings an evolutionary step in understanding this awesome machinery of nature. We are a product of the physical laws of nature trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. We are a way for nature to see and experience itself.

This law is new (1996) and generating a lot of excitement today over the entire range of science—from geophysics and biology to social dynamics and engineering. The interest is fueled by two trends:

1) A voluminous body of knowledge has accumulated, and it shows that features our minds perceive as design (configurations, rhythms, scaling rules) are present in ALL flow systems in nature represented by the empirical repeatable vascularized, treelike patterns found throughout the living universe; similar to the hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities.

2) Design phenomena are not covered by the known laws of physics before 1996.

The empirical knowledge has far outpaced the theoretical framework that is needed to support it. This kind of mismatch is the ammunition and trigger for scientific revolution.

Many scientists have offered their own insights into the riddle of design and evolution in nature. To varying degrees these include fractal geometry, complexity theory, Fibonacci's patterns, network theories, chaos theory, power laws (allometric scaling rules), and other “general social and economic models” and optimality statements (minimum, maximum, optimum), as well as Charles Darwin's seminal work and D'Arcy Thompson's magisterial volume “On Growth and Form,” etc., including the few articles Pro made reference to in this debate.

I challenge Pro to do a simple “fact check” on the constructal law and observe the tens of thousands of “citations.” Citations that do not include those fringe cult groups' who are also infatuated with “ID.”
Debate Round No. 3


Hi-5 for learning then.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That journal you have referenced constantly refers to animals, and machines as being "designed", and you really expect me to say that this isn't some weird concoction of ID dressed up as science? Don't know why you'd think that's disturbing either. It is entirely irrelevant to the point that this journal you have referenced is in fact ID. Bejan could have claimed in that video that he doesn't believe the Noachian flood happened and that journal Con referenced would still be this weird ID pseudoscience.

Also, no you're not addressing the laws of thermodynamics. Addressing implies actually talking about the laws; rather than simply mentioning them. You haven't talked about Zeroth's law and its relation to the thermal equilibrium of three systems, the first law and the consequences of said law (matter can't be created or destroyed), the second law discusses entropy (with entropy being unusable energy), or the third law which discusses heat transfer between systems.

There's no philosophy being discussed here; the only issue of contention here is your use of an atrocious which seems to be arguing for ID. So I'd appreciate you not trying to turn this into a debate on philosophy; we are not talking about philosophical issues.

It's a pity that same excitement isn't applicable to me then.

I see where you tried to go with this argument; that design in physics didn't exist before 1996 and therefore my claim that this nonsense is just another rehash of ID is therefore rendered void as the notion of design wasn't even around. But unfortunately, you made a fatal flaw here. Just because one pseudoscience is kicked from the kerb in on field, that does not mean that people won't try and find a way to try and re-invigorate it in another field. "Of Pandas and People" was most certainly published before 1996; I think it was published in 1989, and that textbook most certainly covered the "theory" of ID and subsequently "design" in nature.

You challenge me hey? Funny that. I wasn't aware that I was arguing for your stance of biology as physics. You brought up a journal which was written atrociously and you brought up a journal which has no citations whatsoever. It is not my job to find adequate sources to back up your arguments mate. As I have pointed out to you, this journal seems to be a train-wreck of ID, evolution and physics, and the journal was too basic; almost to the point of being almost being insultingly basic. I even gave you quotes where this journal goes way over the deep end and delves straight into the realms of ID. May I ask where are your rebuttals to those quotes I took verbatim from that journal you mentioned?

Also, you're conflating patterns with design, a pretty big no, no since a design infers that there was something to make the design; a designer. Patterns can occur naturally, so there's that.

Truthfully, I actually like Con as his arguments are interesting, even though his source is atrocious. If this were a different debate, I'm pretty sure we'd agree with each other for the most part, but on this issue, I'm afraid I don't see competent enough evidence from Con in order to sway me that this journal he has referenced is at all credible ontop of the issue that it is not in fact some weird concoction of ID mixed with physics and biology.


Here we go again, Pro's infatuation with “ID” (Intelligent Design). I answered Pro's selection of Bejan's quotes, where I find no reference to ID, and after looking over those quotes a second time, I'll stated it again, there are no references to ID from Bejan!!! In fact, in Round 2 I linked to a television episode from the Science channel “Through the Wormhole” series where Bejan is on record answering “NO” to the question about the constructal law being signs of a Creator. And on the “citations” issue, I gave Pro a list of Bejan's work having over 50,000 (fifty thousand) citations ( Please click on that link and see all the articles from various journals and the books he published and all those citations, over fifty thousand (50,000). If I had more space here on I would list them all (journals and books) adding up to over 50,000 citations to stress the point.

Actually, Pro put forward little to no science embracing his argument on the “theory of evolution” debating my [Con] position on the unified law of evolution known as the constructal law. If ID is Pro's defense, this debate “Category” belongs in “Religion” or “Philosophy” not “Science.”

While Pro is stuck on ID, for the benefit of those who are critiquing this debate, please allowed me to demonstrate the unifying nature of the constructal law.

“Through the Wormhole” series ( we learned those tree and vascularized patterns found throughout nature are the footprint of the constructal law part of thermodynamics. Since thermodynamics is a “first principle” law, means, it applies to everything in nature. Again, we are a product of the physical laws of nature. A law of physics is a concise statement that summarizes a phenomenon that occurs in nature. A phenomenon is a fact, circumstance or experience that is apparent to the human senses and can be described. The phenomenon throughout evolutionary organization facilitates access for everything that flows, evolves, spreads and is collected: river basins, atmospheric, ocean currents, biology, electron flow, gas flow, thermal gradients, the migration of technology, which includes the evolution of man and machine, wealth, economics and culture, etc. As Adrian Bejan stated in his book “Design in Nature” (

“Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [the constructal law]—a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe—all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth's surface.”

Take for example, throughout the ages the flow of information seeking the path of least resistance, morphing into configuration resulting in a vascularized network known as the internet. And here we are on What would our cave dwelling ancestors think about such evolution? Relative to information flow a new field is on the horizon known as Constructal Infonomics (

Perhaps, future generations of scholars in the political and social sciences may apply the constructal law in the evolution of governance, helping to make this world a better place to live, moving further from the Dark Ages summarized in the following article: (

Take for example Leonard E. Read's 1958 essay in the following short YouTube presentation about a pencil's genealogy (note, 1958 is well before constructal law's discovery). The essay covers the “spontaneous order” (Friedrich Hayek) found in free market systems. Read's reference to Adam Smith's celebrated phrase of an “invisible hand” at the end, is the physical constructal law in action no longer a philosophy in economics but part of the laws of nature. Notice the treelike and vascularized patterns are also the footprint of the physical constructal law, while this law unequivocally anchors economics to the physical laws of nature; unbeknownst to many economist today (

I could go on with examples, but I'll stop here.

Pro can't deny the activity in the scientific community over this relative new discovery of a fundamental law, an outgrowth of the laws of thermodynamics, describing a unified principle for all evolution. While Pro continues to lament over ID, for those of us who find the topic of evolution interesting, should be extremely excited about such a discovery that unifies evolution throughout nature.

To expand on Pro's narrow focus on biology in the evolution of organisms changing over time. In this debate, biological organisms includes the morphing of linkages within the mind of Pro and perhaps, within the minds of those who critique this debate, forming new vascularize linkages of neurons in their brain in the evolution of understanding evolution or the debate thereof. Understanding becomes the freedom from the resistance in the struggle to understand (“Hi-5 for learning”).

I realize this profound relationship is a hard pill to swallow, over a simple concept pertaining to the freedom of flow seeking the path of least resistance morphing the universe into configuration from pure energy flow at the beginning of time.
Debate Round No. 4


And like I explained to you before Con, just because "Intelligent" or "intelligence" is not directly in that journal, that does not mean the journal is not arguing for ID. The very cornerstones of ID is that proponents claim that nature is designed; they also constantly make references to machines as animals as designs of nature (which your journal has done).

As for that video quote, I have already laid out my thoughts on that. Bejan can state whatever he wants on the matter; the fact remains that he is arguing that nature is designed, if he's too incompetent to fully understand the ramifications of stating that nature is designed (i.e implying a designer), then that is his problem.

Because I was unable to respond to your 50, 000 quotes thing last time due to word count limitations, allow me to respond to it now. The point of contention is that this journal which you have referenced has *no* citations. None. Whether or not Bejan's other works have been cited is irrelevant at the moment, because I am talking about this specific journal which you have cited. This journal is what you have given to me to work with, and this is journal is all that I have to work with.

If I were to go out and find another one of Bejan's works, and I bring up that specific work from Bejan which could be shown to be clap-trap, I run the risk of you stating that you did not source that specific journal, and therefore I would be trying to make you agree with Bejan's other works, and you might not even agree with it. So to avoid that hypothetical scenario, I will be looking at the sources which you yourself have given me. And this journal is the only source you have given me to work with. You have given me a source which is poorly written, has no citations, argues that animals and machines are both designed, it has no working out for equations (despite apparently supporting your notion of evolution as physics), and you expect this to fly? Meanwhile, the sources I have presented on the theory of evolution are credible, have a decent amount of citations are in a whole different league to the journal that you have referenced here.

No actually. If you had been paying attention you would know that ID is an off-shoot of creationism; and there has been very large push-back against this from scientifically minded people. The very fact that I have brought up credible journals on the matter discussing the theory of evolution is validation that this discussion is most definitely one which belongs in the category of science; not philosophy or religion. We are discussing evolution, which is the change of allele frequencies over successive generations due to natural selection and other factors. Well, at least I am; I cannot say that Con is approaching this subject from one of science, as unfortunate as that may be. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if Con did not try and put words in my mouth in order to make me say something I did not state (when in fact I have said the very opposite).

And on that site of Constructal Informatics, I've come across some fairly questionable stuff. Underneath the heading, "Articles and Papers" ( there are 3 entries.
(i)The physics of spreading ideas - 24 citations (seriously, are you kidding me?)
(ii)The Physics of Life: The Evolution of Everything (which is not as journal; it's a blasted book)
(iii)Constructal theory of economics - 30 citations

This is an obvious example of pseudo-science parading around as legitimate science due to their poor selection of so called "journals," as journal listed above as (i) is flat out ridiculous seriously that needs to be shown on the New Real Peer Review Twitter account. Point (ii) is a blasted book, and point (iii) is really the only case to be made for a legitimate journal. You can make a case that one journal in this list of 3 is competent. One journal. Because this journal has been listed with the website alongside (i) & (ii) as actual, papers that really throws the legitimacy of this website into serious question.

Con would also do well to realise that bringing up the famous I, Pencil essay which goes over economics, is not relevant and does not belong in a discussion pertaining to science

Isn't it funny how this "activity in the scientific community" is limited to a very small fraction of the community and wherever this is discussed, Bejan always seems to make an appearance eventually
To exacerbate your bad habit of referencing atrocious material, you then go onto reference an article from Western Free Press - which is an online newspaper and thus has little to do with science. Not to mention that even the title of that article is wrong, as science does not concern itself with proof; mathematics is the discipline which deals with proof because the answers which are arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature; not so the case with science. And before I get a "gotcha" stating that I said that physics is pretty much just math; science deals with the creation of theories to explain natural phenomena. It is a fact that allele frequencies change over successive generation, but how and why that occurs; that is the aim of science; to explain things. Proof cannot be applied to these instances because scientific theories which explain natural phenomena are subject to change.

To summarise, whilst I have thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, I am at a loss as to how Con could actually bring up the sources that he has done, and then go on to claim that this has caused a massive stir in the scientific community without even batting an eye. Con's sources have been questionable at best; incompetent, baseless drivel at worst. Calling nature and machinations designed does not provide any explanatory power, nor does it predict natural phenomena (which is what science is all about). Nonetheless I thank Con for an enjoyable debate. May the odds be ever in your favour


In Round 1, I opened with a forward for a constructive debate complemented with a mutual learning experience. What I've learned is Pro's “ID” (Intelligent Design) conspiracy philosophy lacking discussion about his instigation over the “theory of evolution.” A debate in philosophy is a function of one's skilled in a dialectic, as for science, a debate is over interpretation of the empirical achieving congruence within the scientific community. I (Con) brought to the debating floor the constructal law, an evolutionary step in the laws of thermodynamics claimed by Bejan. Pro was unable to argue or debate the empirical relative to the “theory of evolution” over the constructal law.

Pro elected to take the ID route, where I (Con) was looking to learn from one who may have expertise in the “theory of evolution” to launch a convincing debate over the constructal law. Pro's decision to go with a philosophical argument on the bases of ID only gives me cause to continue to search for one who understands the “theory of evolution” over constructal law in an effective debate. Perhaps, this debate will challenge Pro to investigate this constructal law and one day we may meet again on

Pro did bring up a good point about one of my references ( where Pro said, “Not to mention that even the title of that article is wrong, as science does not concern itself with proof; mathematics is the discipline which deals with proof because the answers which are arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature; not so the case with science.”

It is true about “proof” is a function of an “axiomatic” premise. So my curiosity went to purchase said book mentioned in the article. The mapping or the symmetry of the constructal law to Thomas Jefferson's claim about "unalienable Rights" has both empirical (science) and “axiomatic” manifestations pertaining to Jefferson's “self-evident” claim. The functional binary parameters of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (aka positive feedback)” are (life or death), (freedom or tyranny) and (pursuit or no-pursuit). Given “pursuit” requires energy one may formulate a logical AND axiom: flow = life && freedom && energy. The complement is a logical OR axiom; no_flow = death || tyranny || no_energy. The book presented both the empirical (science) and those logical axioms; hence, the “Scientific Proof” claims the author. I must admit, a poor play on words, but eye catching.

In science we can't overlook the human factor in the chemistry between scholarly elites and the conservative inertia imbedded in established knowledge or one's favorite set of journals with simple “citation” counts. It took Einstein nearly forty years to get the scientific community to evolve from classical Newtonian. It's not that Newtonian was wrong, Einstein just added an evolutionary step in the fidelity of understanding. Perhaps, it may take Bejan that long adding an evolutionary step to Darwinian in the fidelity of understanding this awesome machinery of nature.

In closing, I thank Pro for the time spend in this debate and in this New Year setting, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty,” in the “pursuit of Happiness” within Pro's comfort zone, life's “unalienable Rights” the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
Dammit. Made a mistake in round 5. 50, 000 quotes should be 50, 000 citations. I really should re-read what I'm actually typing before I submit my response.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
Whew. Finally done. Thanks Con for an interesting debate; I actually had a bit of fun with this.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
Lol. I forgot a piece after talking about avida simulations in Round 3. Whoops.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
@Go0rDin Actually, you know what, stuff it. I will challenge you.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
@Go0rDin Sounds like a good plan to me; unfortunately, I won't be able to find time for a little, bit tbh. These two debates will have me busy for a little while. I'll give you a challenge when I can find some time to do so.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
Spud, when you ugh, find some time. We should have a discussion maybe in the forums, or you can man up and challenge me.

I am A Young Earth Creationist. and My profile here is already substantial reference links to expand upon my limited character count.

I bury people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.