Debating a Creationist April 18th

Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

I am debating a Creationist April 18th. I already told them that I will not be getting into the guts of Evolutionary Theory, but rather, will support it from a Philosophy of Science stand point. I will discuss how science works, what a scientific theory is, and why Evolution is scientific.

Any thing else I should know and or discuss?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Kick some ass, Chaos. I like the approach you are using, and I'll be interested to know how it works.

I'm sure it will come up, but explaining why creationism is not science would be good. Also, be prepared to defend the presumption of naturalism charge that cretins like to bring up.

BTW, where is the debate? Can we listen in?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Kick some ass, Chaos. I like the approach you are using, and I'll be interested to know how it works.

Thanks.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
I'm sure it will come up, but explaining why creationism is not science would be good. Also, be prepared to defend the presumption of naturalism charge that cretins like to bring up.

Of course. Creationism makes no positive claims. "Goddidit" is the only claim. I was listening to the the Biologist PZ Meyers rip Michael Behe apart and he said "I asked Michael Behe, if the cell was irreducibly complex, then how did it come about and he said 'it was designed' and I said, but how? And he didn't say anything."

This is something to keep in mind. Creationism is such an empty hypothesis that which stripped of all its so called glitter, its exposed as being an empty pseudo-scientific idea.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
BTW, where is the debate? Can we listen in?

Its at my university. I will try to get an MP3 of the show, so you guys can broadcast it if you want.

I like my approach. It took me years to understand Evolutionary Science as well as I do today...and even know, there is alot I don't know. Friends of Science make the mistake of debating the theory itself...which makes the creationists tune out. Rather, what America needs is a good lession of how science works.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

I imagine at some point he'll try to make the argument that evolution is false therefore God is real. If he makes that argument, please show him how he just proved the Flying Spaghetti Monster is god. :roll:

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Sapient wrote:
I imagine at some point he'll try to make the argument that evolution is false therefore God is real. If he makes that argument, please show him how he just proved the Flying Spaghetti Monster is god. :roll:

Creationists fall into the fallacy of false dilemma. They think there are only two options:

!. Evolution is true

or...

2. Creationism is true.

They abuse the inference rule "disjunctive syllogism. They try to negate Evolution, and think that this automatically makes Creationism true. This would be a good argument, if there were only two options. However, there are many more. Hence, this line of reasoning is fallacious.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

for those interested, here is the website of the guy I will be debating:

http://www.creationinstruction.org/

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Oh yeah, and chances are good that an MP3 will be made of the debate. If I can get an MP3, I will donate it to the Rational Response Squad.

I guess this is a pretty big deal around campus. Some of my Philosophy professors are happy that I am doing it. I told them I didn't want to, but then decided I needed to take action and fight irrationality.

Fucking creationism...will it never die in this science depraved culture?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Just gotta watch out for the bullshit shotgun debate tactic of tossing their lies everywhere and seeing what sticks.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Lucretius wrote:
Just gotta watch out for the bullshit shotgun debate tactic of tossing their lies everywhere and seeing what sticks.

indeed.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Well, I wish you all the luck. Creationists are usually tricky and charismatic; often pulling the wool over their audiences eyes with massive amounts of lies and logical fallacies.

If I may suggest something ? it's something I think would greatly help nullify what I've seen most Creationists pull in an opening speech. Start out by saying "Let me tell you a little story. In the beginning there was nothing. It exploded into something, called Earth. On Earth there was a magical rock, and this rock, with the magical time, made monkeys. Monkeys poofed into human beings and here we are today. Now isn't that a stupid belief? Indeed, this is what's known as a strawman argument, and it is commonly used against evolution."

Then you should explain the strawman and why it's bad.

Then again, you aren't discussing the science, but philosophy. I am just thinking about using that line when I get into debates with Creationists on my own show (I need to get some recording stuff heh).


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Rock n' Roll....give them a philosophical aenema, clean out their minds..from shit. I'm sure you'll do well.

one of the arguments I get into many times lies within the realm of trying to prove creationism using science......that is a fallacy in itself. You cannot prove god or creationism using science..you can try to explain it theologically or faithfully..but not scientifically.

I won't use theology to prove evolution so don't use science to prove creationism.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

LeftofLarry wrote:
I won't use theology to prove evolution so don't use science to prove creationism.

Awsome quotes! Laughing out loud

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


CynageN
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Agreed, that one's going in a favorite quote thread else where. Smiling


Obscure
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Try not to fall into the typical Hovind arguments of the Shrinking Sun, the attack on fossil layers, the arguments against radiocarbon dating, and the ever-so-popular use of the age of coral reefs/dinosaur bones/lava quantities and so on.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

well, in a few hours I will be debating the Creationist. Wish me luck Smiling


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

We don't need luck, we're rational.


Obscure
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

So, how'd it go? Was the creationist competent at all? Juicy details please Smiling


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Obscure wrote:
So, how'd it go? Was the creationist competent at all? Juicy details please Smiling

It went as good as I could have expected. It was a waste of my time. I deluded myself into actually thinking people would show up with an open mind.

Here I am discussing in great detail the scientific method, the criteria of adequecy, and showing how Evolution is, on a very abstract level, superior to creationism as an explanation AND as a scientific theory. I discredited the argument from design...but the audience didn't hear a fucking word I was saying.

I was immediatly branded as an atheist, and after word people tried to convert me. This one lady even gave me a bible :roll:

I honestly thought that if I kept the discussion simple, that I would gain support. I honestly thought that if I showed no contradiction between believing in Evolution and Theism that I would win them over.

But no. They liked the wise cracking creationist cock-sucker :roll:

Honestly, I want to combat irrationality...but how? These people didn't want to learn about science, they just wanted a chance to convert an infidel.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Will you be getting an mp3 of it? I would like to hear the thing. Can't believe you had that many Creationists at your university! Unless you go to Patriot Bible University? Smiling


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Part of the problem with that is lack of science in education, specifically that the scientific method and what theory actually means are poorly taught. Some of this is also a result of the way we teach math as well, which turns people away from math heavy science. Add to this a society that will readily believe in almost anything someone says as long as they can understand it, and it can be tough to sway them from those beliefs.

I personally having always been interested in science, didn't really understand the full power of it until I started doing college level work. High school and lower education just doesn't do enough to really capture the mind and demonstrate what we're really doing, they just do some simple experiments and say "hey, isn't that neat" and then force a few equations down your throat (especially when they're simplified and can't be readily applied to everyday crap).

Plus, already being predisposed to hogwash, you get them going on a particular belief that is in line with things they already believe, and it can be really hard to sway them into even trying to accept reason even just alongside their beliefs.

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


Matt-Evolved
Matt-Evolved's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

A have a question, what university were you giving this debate at? And, further, if you are anywhere near Chicago could you plan a debate at either Moraine Valley Community College http://www.morainevalley.edu or St. Xavier University http://www.sxu.edu?

If the university that you gave the debate at was at any kind of religious institution, you must have known that your audience would have been biased one way or the other. But it did seem like you already tailored the speech to fit the audience by not going into all the science theory behind the theory itself.

The problem that I always find myself in when debating a creationist is that the audience is always on their side. And, a lot of the time, the creationist has his "posse" with him so he can pull out all of these fallacies and lies and have the audience agree with him.

This country thinks that atheists are immoral beings that are only out to destroy religion. Given that many of us atheists would like to see this country practice freedom FROM religion opposed to freedom of religion, many times we are the ones asking questions and hoping that the audience will take it upon themselves to truly find the answer to it. We know the evidence in support of evolution. We know the holes and lies that creationism, and even "intelligent" design, presents. We would like to spur them into deciding for themselves that religion is a bunch of brainwashing. Many times, though, we are automatically ostracized from credibiltiy because of our viewpoints.

Sometimes I feel like this fight is one that we cannot win due to their ignorance. A person's belief is hard to change, but ideas are easily changed. Too bad these people believe in a god.[/url]

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race." -


Matt-Evolved
Matt-Evolved's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

A have a question, what university were you giving this debate at? And, further, if you are anywhere near Chicago could you plan a debate at either Moraine Valley Community College http://www.morainevalley.edu or St. Xavier University http://www.sxu.edu?

If the university that you gave the debate at was at any kind of religious institution, you must have known that your audience would have been biased one way or the other. But it did seem like you already tailored the speech to fit the audience by not going into all the science theory behind the theory itself.

The problem that I always find myself in when debating a creationist is that the audience is always on their side. And, a lot of the time, the creationist has his "posse" with him so he can pull out all of these fallacies and lies and have the audience agree with him.

This country thinks that atheists are immoral beings that are only out to destroy religion. Given that many of us atheists would like to see this country practice freedom FROM religion opposed to freedom of religion, many times we are the ones asking questions and hoping that the audience will take it upon themselves to truly find the answer to it. We know the evidence in support of evolution. We know the holes and lies that creationism, and even "intelligent" design, presents. We would like to spur them into deciding for themselves that religion is a bunch of brainwashing. Many times, though, we are automatically ostracized from credibiltiy because of our viewpoints.

Sometimes I feel like this fight is one that we cannot win due to their ignorance. A person's belief is hard to change, but ideas are easily changed. Too bad these people believe in a god.[/url]

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race." -


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Obscure wrote:
So, how'd it go? Was the creationist competent at all? Juicy details please Smiling

It went as good as I could have expected. It was a waste of my time. I deluded myself into actually thinking people would show up with an open mind.

Here I am discussing in great detail the scientific method, the criteria of adequecy, and showing how Evolution is, on a very abstract level, superior to creationism as an explanation AND as a scientific theory. I discredited the argument from design...but the audience didn't hear a fucking word I was saying.

I was immediatly branded as an atheist, and after word people tried to convert me. This one lady even gave me a bible :roll:

I honestly thought that if I kept the discussion simple, that I would gain support. I honestly thought that if I showed no contradiction between believing in Evolution and Theism that I would win them over.

But no. They liked the wise cracking creationist cock-sucker :roll:

Honestly, I want to combat irrationality...but how? These people didn't want to learn about science, they just wanted a chance to convert an infidel.

I'm sorry to hear this, but it is what I expected.

Did you notice any buses or car pools coming in before the debate? Fundies organize and tend to pack the house with sympathetic, unswayable robots.

People who already believe in science and reason really see no reason to attend - though the fact that the twits who would stifle reason are organized should inspire the meekest of biology nerds to rise up, IMO. I had a very similar experience in college, all to often it is a set up.

I do fundamentally like your approach though, and would love to get a transcript if I could if it exists. I always feeling like I'm talking over people when I break out evidence like endogenous retrogenes and atavisms. I figure, if people are going to ignore me, they may as well ignore something they can understand Laughing out loud

Seriously though, Chaos, keep up the good fight, it's all we can do to keep the candle in the dark burning for those who might seek it. And please, let's exchange notes some time soon.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Debating a Creationist April 18th

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Seriously though, Chaos, keep up the good fight, it's all we can do to keep the candle in the dark burning for those who might seek it. And please, let's exchange notes some time soon.

Here are my 5 pages of notes...

Notes for the Evolution/Creationism debate

Preface:

I do not claim to be an expert in the field of Evolutionary Science. I am simply a supporter. Because I have a limited amount of time, I will not be able to cover everything that I would like to cover. Therefore, do not be surprised if I gloss over some things, or, if I fail to address others.

With that said, lets get started.

How science works

To understand how science works, it is important to understand the methodology used in science. The scientific method is composed of three main parts:

1. An observation of a given phenomena. An example of a phenomena that is observable, is that of gravitation. Before the law of gravity was formulated by Sir Isaac Newton, there was nothing which explained why things fell to the earth. All there was, was simply the observable phenomena that things fell to the earth; there was no mathematical or physical explanation for WHY things fell to the earth.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. Hence, after we have observed a given natural phenomena, a hypothesis is formed that explains the given phenomena. At this point, all we have is a hypothesis, which needs to be tested. This leads us to the third step.

3. Test the given hypothesis, and try to falsify it. This is an important part of science, perhaps the most important part. After we have formulated a hypothesis, we must test it. There are various ways to test a given hypothesis, but the general method is to try and find evidence to prove the hypothesis wrong. Hence, one of the corner stones of science, is that it looks for evidence which could prove their hypothesis wrong. If the hypothesis passes this step, it moves on to becoming either a law of a theory.

If the hypothesis passes the skeptical protocols of science, then it moves on to becoming either a scientific law, or, a scientific theory. I will not concern myself with scientific laws at this moment, for it is irrelevant to the given discussion. However, it is of paramount importance to understand what a scientific theory is. It is only after we understand what a scientific theory is, that we are in a position to fully appreciate the theory of Evolution.

A scientific theory is defined as follows: A scientific theory represents a hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. It is important to understand that what moves a scientific hypothesis from a mere hypothesis, to a theory, is by experimental and empirical tests. Hence, all scientific theories have been empirically verified for accuracy, and, are open to further empirical verification.

This of course, begs the question of: What makes a good hypothesis and for that matter a good theory? Well, lets start by seeing how sciences discriminates between hypothesis.

Criteria of Adequacy:

1. A hypothesis is only scientific, if it can be tested, and, if it predicts things beyond itself. This criteria is what separates science, from pseudo-science.

2. A scientific hypothesis is only scientific, if it is fruitful. What this means, is that the more new fields a given hypothesis can open up for study, the better it is.

3. The greater the scope of the hypothesis, the better the hypothesis. This simply refers to the number of facts a given hypothesis can explain. Hence, a hypothesis that explains 100 facts is superior to a hypothesis which only explains 50 facts.

4. The hypothesis which makes the fewest unproven assumptions, is superior.

If we can all agree with this criteria, we can see how Evolutionary theory stacks up on this criteria.
Can it be tested? Yes. Everything evolution posits, has been tested repeatedly.
Is it fruitful? Yes. Since the time of Charles Darwin, evolutionary science has opened up many fields of study, spanning, but not limited to fields in: Anthropology, Geology, Evolutionary Linguistics, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Medicine, and of course, Evolutionary Biology.
Does the theory have a great scope? Absolutely. Evolutionary science is what unified Biology. Without the Theory of Evolution, all Biology would consist of is brute facts with no explanation for why they are one way as opposed to another.
Does Evolution make few unproven assumptions? The only assumptions evolution rests upon is the scientific method, and the notion that life can be explained in purely naturalistic terms.

The Criteria of Adequacy and Creationism/Intelligent Design:

We have reached the point, where we can analyze Intelligent Design, and see whether it is a viable scientific hypothesis.

Can creationism be tested? To the best of my knowledge, it cannot. How would one go about testing creationism? How could one possibly test to see whether or not the world was created by God? As of now, there is no way to test for this. Furthermore, I can?t see anyway one would go about testing what I would dub, ?the God hypothesis.?
Is it fruitful? For the sake of argument, lets assume creationism were true. What fields of research would this open up? None. One would be left simply with the phrase ?God did it.? No new fields of study would be developed if creationism were true.
Does the theory have a great scope? No. Creationism does not explain anything. If one ponders creationism?s explanatory power, one soon realizes that it is bankrupt when it comes to explaining natural phenomena. Does it explain why parasites exist? No. Does it explain why one animal must feed off of another animal? No. Does it explain animal suffering? No. Does it explain why the human body is prone to get cancer? No. Does it explain why virus?s exist? No. The list goes on and on.
Does Creationism make few unproved assumptions? No. In order for Creationism to work, one must posit the existence of an unproven entity. Presumably, this entity is God. But this is like stacking fog on fog. For we must ask: How did God create the universe? This is something Creationism cannot answer. Thus, the explanation in turn, needs an explanation. Without a mechanism explaining exactly how God created life, we have explained nothing.

The creation hypothesis fails the criteria of adequacy.

The Criteria of Adequacy for Scientific Theories/Explanations:

The criteria for theories/explanations is not that different than it is for hypothesis. All things being equal, here is the following criteria:

1. That which explains the data with the fewest assumptions is superior.

2. The theory/explanation which fits well with what we already know about the universe, is superior.

3. The theory which generates testable predictions, is superior to one which does not.

4. A theory which explains date another theory cannot, is superior. In other words, that which leaves little mystery is superior.

5. The fewest ad hoc assumptions a theory postulates, the better.

The Argument From Design:

Often times Creationism rests upon the argument from design. William Paley wrote in his book Natural Theology, the following passage:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.

In other words, William Paley is making an analogy regarding the complexity of a watch, and inferring that since a watch is complex, and since we know watches don?t just arise by chance, the universe must also have been designed.

Another way to formulate the argument, is simply:

1. If there is design, then there must be a designer.
2. The world was designed.
Therefore,
3. The world has a designer.

The argument, however, suffers from serious flaws:

1) The argument is question begging
2) The analogy is very weak.
3) How do we know the world was designed?
4) Based strictly on the evidence, can we really infer God, even if the argument works?

I will know explain and defend the 4 points of contention.

The argument is question begging

If we look at the argument, we can see that it begs the question. The argument, assumes without proof, that the world was designed; The argument merely asserts that the world was designed. However, if we are having a debate on whether or not the world was in fact designed, assuming from the start that the world was designed simply begs the question.

The analogy is very weak

For one, we have seen watches made. We already know that watches do not assemble themselves. However, we do not know this about the universe. We have never seen a universe being created (if in fact, the universe was created). Hence, the analogy fails. While we know watches are created, we cannot say the same for universes.

How do we know the world was designed?

What justification do we have for even thinking the universe was designed? To understand this question, perhaps it is best to think of it in terms of Set Theory. Presumably, there exists two sets of worlds. One set contains all the worlds that are designed and the other set contains all the worlds which have not been designed.

The question arises, how does one determine membership into one of these sets? We do this, by common properties. For instance, a designed world would have properties X, Y and Z. While an undersigned world would be lacking these properties and perhaps, have other properties which would be incompatible with properties X, Y and Z.

What are these properties exactly? What exactly does a Designed universe look like? Without knowing the criteria which makes a world either designed or undersigned, it is impossible to know which set the actual world is a member of. To illustrate this point, here is an example.

How do we know if a house is well designed, or, if it is poorly designed? We only know this, by experiencing what a good house is, compared to a bad house is. Thus, when I say ?This house was poorly designed?, I implicitly imply that I know, to some degree, what a good house looks like.

However, with our current universe, we have nothing to compare it to. All we have, is our experiences with regard to the one universe. Thus, as of now, there is no way in which to determine which set the actual world belongs to.

Based strictly on the evidence, can we really infer God if the argument works?

When I say ?God? I am taking for granted that we all know what God we are talking about. The Argument from Design is meant to establish the existence of the God who is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. The argument is not meant to establish the existence of a God both Spinoza and Einstein believed in (they believed that God was simply the totality of nature).

However, sticking purely to natural theology, what can we infer about this alleged creator? Almost nothing. We cannot infer that he is good or bad, wise or stupid. In fact, for all we know, the creator could be an advanced race of aliens. Or, it could be many gods. We honestly cannot infer much from the argument from design. All we can infer, is that the universe was created. Any further inferences, are unjustified.

As a side note, I encourage everyone here to go Google, and type in ?The Schopenhauer Awards.? What you will come to, will be a list of creatures which have no purpose in an Intelligently Designed universe. One of the creatures is called The Candiru. The Candiru is a parasite which lodges itself in the urinary track of humans. Evolutionary Science can account for such a creature. Creationism/I.D cannot.

Is Evolution incompatible with religion?

Absolutely not. Evolution is only incompatible with one small sect of theism, which takes as literal truth, a given creation story. One can be a theism as well as an Evolutionist. For more information on the compatibility of Evolution with theism, check out Kenneth Miller?s book ?Finding Darwin?s God.?

I assume most of you here are theists of some sort. It is important for you to understand, that you can be both a theist and an evolutionist. Evolution does not exclude religious belief.

Pondering Evolution

According to evolutionary science, every living thing on earth, is related in so way, to everything else. I don?t know about you, but that is awe inspiring. Think about that for a minute. You are related to every other living thing on this planet. You are related to lions, sheep, frogs, wolves?everything. Hence, on evolutionary theory, we all have quite the extended family.

We don?t need the illusion of creationism to be awestruck. As Carl Sagan once said ?We are all made of star stuff.? When we look around the world, we don?t need to see the hand of God at work to assign meaning to our experience. Rather, we can think to ourselves ?wow, nature sure is amazing.?

Conclusion

To close, the creationist has the burden of proof. The Creationist, not the Evolutionist, must prove their case. Evolutionary Science has been tested time and time again. Evolution is recognized in pretty much every field of science as a good theory. Creationism, however, is not. Therefore, it is up to the Creationist to provide evidence for the creation hypothesis. The evidence should consist of more then mere attacks on evolutionary science. Even if Evolution were proven wrong, this would not prove creationism.

Thank you for coming to this debate.

Also visit this website, http://web.stcloudstate.edu/kwwilliford/

Click on "Phil 194" then "194 Lectures" read lectures 25-30 for a discussion on Evolution V Creationism, from a purely abstract Philosophical perspective.

This is the website of one of my favorate Philosophy professors. His wife is a Biologist, so he definatly knows what he is talking about.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions