CreateDebate


Debate Info

69
26
No, hence Yes
Debate Score:95
Arguments:24
Total Votes:106
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, hence (18)
 
 Yes (6)

Debate Creator

geoff(738) pic



Do staunch creationists understand evolution?

Natural selection is the theory

No, hence

Side Score: 69
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 26
7 points

So often I hear proponents of creationism/intelligent design claim that the 'odds' of complex biological functionality are too high to be attributable to 'chance' alone or that 'evolution is just a theory'. In all cases, it seems to me that they simply don't understand that biological evolution is a fact, the scientific theory of natural selection has been put forward as an explanation and that the adaptation to the environment of organisms is the opposite of chance.

Side: No, hence
5 points

Maybe there's a way it could be demonstrated? Like with a colony of bacteria or something, you could change the conditions a few times and show how much they've changed at the end, or something. Has there been such a demonstration?

Side: No, hence
9 points

While I don't know whether they have been documented instances of macroevolution in the laboratory, there certainly have been observed instances of speciation, which goes a long way towards discrediting the creationist argument that "well, we've never actually seen macroevolution happen". See the attached link.

Supporting Evidence: Observed instances of speciation (www.talkorigins.org)
Side: No, hence
6 points

I know this isn't quite what you're after, but my psychology professor tried to explain the argument against intelligent design/creationism by using the example of two cities. Brasilia, Brazil's capital city, was designed and built in the late 1960s with a conscious design plan. According to my professor, the city was a total flop. Look at London, on the other hand -- it's a sprawling city not built on a grid or with any logical planning, and it's one of the most successful cities in the world. Also, evolution takes centuries and centuries, so such a demonstration even with simple bacteria would be a monumental undertaking.

Side: No, hence
4 points

This has been demonstrated with selective breeding for centuries. When you think that almost all domestic dogs have originated from the wolf, and how much variety there is in the species, it's not hard to imagine it happening in the wild over a slower period of time.

Supporting Evidence: Selective Breeding (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: No, hence
2 points

Get a cold. Sneeze into a Kleenex and wait a few hours, letting your own body fight the sickness. Once you start feeling better, touch the Kleenex again or perform some other disgusting action to re-intake the bacteria into your system.

In a few hours time, the bacteria will have evolved into some new strain that your body has to re-fight in order to make you well again. Evolution at its finest.

Side: No, hence
1 point

There have been many multi-generational evolution experiments which agree with natural selection. Here's one about guppies: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEED71F38F935A15754C0A966958260

Side: No, hence
5 points

No, they don't. Science has given us plenty of proof that a system of evolution exists. For someone to understand this and still believe it is fake is simply a contradiction: If they understood evolution and the science behind it, they couldn't deny it, hence they would not be staunch creationists in the first place.

Side: No, hence
5 points

I would have to say the majority probably don't. I simply can't accept that people could truly understand it and not think "You know what... that is absolutly perfect."

"Creationism" is a simply ridiculous idea that is supported with lies, mistruths, manipulation of facts and a general misunderstanding of evolution.

Side: No, hence
0 points

Indeed, which is why creationism is doomed.

Side: No, hence
3 points

Heh, how about this: No. If they understood it, they'd believe it. :) It's that simple. Note: by "staunch creationists" I am assuming they do not believe in evolution.

Side: No, hence
2 points

They obviously have a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Supporting Evidence: Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (www.physorg.com)
Side: second law of thermodynamics

It has come time to accept fact. The problem is not science, it is religion. Science can accept the possibility that a divine being may have created the universe. Religion seems to have the issue with science, and claims it false. But evidence is evidence. No, creationists do not understand evolution. This is because they claim that humans cannot have come from monkeys. That is not the theory. The theory states common ancestry, not monkeys. And for those who ask why haven't humans changed, look at sharks. Sharks have stayed the same for millions of years. There is a point in which evolution is slow or barely occuring because a species is well adapted. Humans are almost adapted or capable of surviving in any place. Our intelligence evolved. Thats the logic.

Side: No, hence
1 point

For any readers doubting whether staunch creationists understand evolution, try looking up the videos by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on youtube. That will solve the debate instantly.

Side: No, hence
6 points

As long as "creationism" merely means the view that "god created the Universe", yes, there certainly are staunch creationists who understand evolution; I'm friends with one such person. Whether the majority of them do, I don't know; nor do I know how common such understanding is among creationists who also deny evolution (my friend believes in Theistic evolution; see link).

Supporting Evidence: Theistic evolution on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Yes
5 points

Creationism is such a broad term. I, for example, believe that the universe was created by God. At the same time I also believe that evolution and natural selection do occur. Many creationists do understand evolution, others choose not to because they see it as being in some way sinful. Strange but true.

I think it's about time I started a debate on the topic that seems to be resurfacing over and over again....

Side: Yes
geoff(738) Disputed
1 point

Creationism contradicts evolution by natural selection - you cannot subscribe to both - it would be like tossing a coin and it landing on both sides. Creationism in any shade does not support the phylogenetic tree for instance.

Side: No, hence
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
1 point

Only if you assume that believing in God contradicts scientific study and that the Bible should be read literally.

Side: Yes
1 point

I'm not a staunch creationist - I believe that God created the universe, but that from there he just gives it nudges here and there in the right directions. I do know people though that understand as well as average people about how evolution is supposed to work that still believe the literal word of the Bible and Genesis. Their argument is that the evolution we see is micro scale evolution, and that we've never seen a species move from one to another. Viruses, bacteria, and small changes like the black squirrels don't even count to them because they're such small changes.

Supporting Evidence: black squirrel (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Side: Yes
xaeon(1093) Disputed
5 points

There are tons and tons of transitional fossils.

Side: Yes
0 points

Here are some excerpts from Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from a creationist website.

“Evolution is just a theory.”

What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.”

These terms, which focus on “small” vs. “large” changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off.

Supporting Evidence: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (www.answersingenesis.org)
Side: Yes