- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
All right, I admit I started this debate just to hear what creationists should say. But since there don't seem to be many creationists on this site, I changed the settings. I think teachers should teach creationism as an example of a hypothesis that lacks evidence.
I understand the position that you are speaking from, but
1. How did the creator come into existence?
2. Why does this creator have to be a God? As I understand, this debate has basically come down to disputing the credibility of the Christian god, which does not necessarily have to be the creator.
That doesn't mean that evolution is flawed. It's a biological theory, and the creation of the universe has more to do with physics. As to the origin of life, how is the interference of a divine being more likely than chance? Just because evolution does not explain the origin of life does not mean that God is the explanation.
Well, I know quite a few teachers that don't like evolution, but they do a good job of teaching it anyways. And I haven't watched Expelled yet, so I don't know what it says, but the obvious next step in Intelligent Design (pretty much the same as creationism) being scientifically accepted is it being taught as an alternative theory.
On the other hand, while we may not split into two species, GM could very likely divide the human race into super-enhanced "Alphas", a partially modified middle class, and an underclass composed of rejects that were not modified for various reasons. (Ethical qualms, religion, financial restrictions.)
Or maybe it will just be two almost separate species of modified and unmodified, but with the same class roles as above. Then we could really grow to be like the Morlocks and Eloi.
Hmm...this makes me think of the Morlocks and the Eloi from The Time Machine.
Evolving into a new species? Most likely. Adaptive radiation makes us evolve into multiple species? Perhaps.
However, I don't think the world is divided enough as is to currently entertain the possibility of the haves and have-nots separating into distinct species.
I think free will is one of those things where people can debate for ages but no clear answer will emerge. It's one of those topics where people's definitions vary a lot, and the moderator didn't provide one. My personal definition is the ability to have conscious control over decisions.
What I was referring to when I said "when free will exists" was the existence of a conviction that we have conscious control over decisions. This belief can never be truly correct or incorrect, because everyone has different concepts of free will.