The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrMaestro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

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: 3/25/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 377 times Debate No: 121003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

For clarification, I am referring to Biblical Creationism (Genesis 1 & 2) and the mainstream evolutionary theory (supported by scientific consensus).

I am referring to the common usage/definition of irrational: not logical or reasonable.

Round 1: Acceptance/Opening argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals/Closing arguments

Opening Argument

This is a large subject, So I will attempt to focus my argument to homo sapiens.

The Creationist view is that God created homo sapiens and all other life, Including the entire universe in 7 days or less. Adam and Eve were the original homo sapien archetypes in which all modern homo sapiens derived from. Adam and Eve were made of clay and magic, So no homo sapien can trace their genetic lineage beyond these two archetypes. Adam and Eve collectively originated the human "kind".

The evolutionist view is that homo sapiens are the product of a long evolutionary descent that extends far beyond our homo sapien species. There were never only two humans, According to evolutionary theory; there were approximately 2-3 thousand in existence around our metaphorical inception, And no evidence suggests that inception was divinely inspired.

These two views are entirely conflicting, And holding them simultaneously is not logical or reasonable (irrational).
MrMaestro

Con

"It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously"

Evolution, As I understand it, Explains how living organisms can change into new, Better adapted living organisms. Evolution does not, And has not ever claimed to explain the origin of life itself.

In science, The study of the origin of life is called "Abiogenesis". According to the Abiogenesis Wikipedia page, There are 24 current scientific theories that attempt to explain the origin of life. You'll notice that "Evolution" is not among them. [1].

[1]en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Abiogenesis


--

Creationism, Is simply another theory that tries to explain the origin of life. Genesis says nothing about how animals adapt due to environmental pressure.

You are proposing a false dichotomy. This is like saying you can't believe in ghosts if you don't like vanilla icecream. The two have nothing to do with each other, This is not an "either/or" kind of problem.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

You are correct that abiogenesis explains the origin of life; however, I am not talking about the origin of life, I am talking about the origin of homo sapiens. The origin of homo sapiens is part of evolution, As I outlined previously. Evolution does not make claims about life’s origins; however, It does make claims about the origins of species following life’s initial inception.

I am not proposing a false dichotomy, Because both of these views, Although entirely conflicting, Try to explain how homo sapiens arose. Creationism claims homo sapiens arose from clay and magic, And evolution claims homo sapiens arose from their evolutionary ancestors via natural selection and other evolutionary pressures.

You are further incorrect by conflating creationism and theory. Creationism is not a theory. It makes no testable future novel predictions, And its testable claims have been falsified numerous times over by science.

You are correct that Genesis makes no proclamations about animal adaptations due to environment pressure. To think it could would be ludicrous considering its authors were science illiterate stone/bronze age primals with no knowledge of genetics or speciation. It does however refer to all "kinds" being made by a creator God, Mankind specifically, And those kinds are the archetypes for their species. If all animals were made at once in a 7-day period, It's impossible for them to all be a chronological progressing product of evolutionary lineage. Once again, This presents another contradicting claim to evolution.

The two views are vastly different and entirely contradictive. Once again, I assert that holding both views simultaneously is irrational.

Back to you.

MrMaestro

Con

Now I understand that scripture and science have very different ideas about our early ancestors.

My problem is that you are positioning these two ideas as polar opposites. I would argue that you are focusing on a specific conflict point and ignoring the overall ideas behind evolution and creationism. The point of Genesis is to explain the creation of the universe and life. Evolution focuses on how life changed after it was created. These two ideas don't really describe the same thing. Just because they don't agree exactly how humans got here today does not mean they are polar opposites.

It is possible for two concepts to be distantly related, Without casting them as contradictory.


"If all animals were made at once in a 7-day period, It's impossible for them to all be a chronological progressing product of evolutionary lineage. "

There are many interpretations of Genesis, Some literal, Some metaphorical. Some theists have argues that a "day" in god-time might be an epoch in "human time". When the bible was written people didn't have common worldwide terminology that described specific lengths of time. It's plausible that the word "day" in Genesis might not mean a literal day.


"You are further incorrect by conflating creationism and theory. Creationism is not a theory. It makes no testable future novel predictions".
You are correct, I was using the word theory colloquially, It doesn't fit the more stringent scientific definition. Although as far as I know none of the 24 known hypothesis of abiogenesis have created testable predictions either. We have exactly one example of life arising out of inorganic matter - we can't test something that we can't observe. We simply do not have enough data to form strong scientific arguments on this subject.

To be clear, I do not believe that scientific ignorance automatically justifies creationism. I do believe in holding these ideas up to the same standard of scrutiny, However.

---

Lastly, I would like to point out that it's possible to believe in two different ideas even if those ideas don't perfectly align.

For example, I believe that competition is the basis of a healthy economy, However I also believe that competition should be artificially limited sometimes to grant social security and prevent monopolies. It's possible to choose a middle ground. Similarly, We wouldn't expect a conservative or liberal voter to agree 100% with their party's politics. We allow people to hold moderate views as well.

Some people choose to believe that God created life, And life evolved from there. I see no conflict with this. You are essentially "gatekeeping" evolution. Spiritual people are allowed to believe in science too.
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

You said "Now I understand that scripture and science have very different ideas about our early ancestors. "

Yes, Exactly. There are many overlapping points between evolution and Creationism, Particularly around speciation.

Because they are entirely contrasting views, One cannot believe humans were made from clay/magic AND believe humans arose from ancestral evolution - while being rational. This is my whole argument.

A person cannot believe the tenants of Creationism and the facts of evolution and be considered rational. They can compartmentalize and "believe" both, But that would not be considered rational.

Some people choose to believe that God created life, And life evolved from there. I see no conflict with this. You are essentially "gatekeeping" evolution. Spiritual people are allowed to believe in science too.

That is perfectly fine, They can believe both of those - but that is NOT Creationism and it's irrelevant to this debate. That is something they just made up to aid them in compartmentalizing their internal dichotomy. Their Genesis books are clear and if they choose to eliminate pieces of it so they can compartmentalize it better - that is disingenuous.
MrMaestro

Con

If your premise was "that Genesis disagrees with Evolution on how humans came to be" then, Yeah I agree with you. But that's not your premise. Your premise is that "It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously".

My opponent believes that Evolution and Creationism "are entirely contrasting views". I disagree. I've pointed out that:
  1. Evolution says nothing about the creation of life
  2. Creationism says nothing about the evolution of life
  3. Casting two ideas as contradictory, Simply because they have a few points of conflict, Is dishonest
---

"A person cannot believe the tenants of Creationism and the facts of evolution and be considered rational. They can compartmentalize and "believe" both, But that would not be considered rational. "

So would you hold the following views as irrational too then, Simply because they have some contradictory points?
  • I believe in the 2nd amendment - people should have the right to bear arms. I also believe that ex-cons convicted of violent crimes should not have the right to bear arms.
  • I believe that people should have the right to free speech, However I also believe that people should not be allowed to verbally attack others based on race or ethnicity.
  • I believe that god created life, However I also believe that animals evolve over time.
*not my actual viewpoints - just there for the sake of argument

---

Again, I assert that "It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously" is a false dichotomy. Just because two views don't agree on 100% of all points doesn't mean you can cast them as ONE OR THE OTHER. It just seems dishonest.


Thank you for the rational debate Killshot, And thanks all for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@billsands - Genesis is part of the Abrahamic doctrine so followers have no choice but to accept it. Genesis 1-2 and evolution are dichotomous. If you are not referring to the Abrahamic God, Then sure.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
Agreed but one can believe in a god and in evolution easily no contradiction their
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.