CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:157
Arguments:150
Total Votes:199
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What is wrong with God being responsible for Evolution? (129)

Debate Creator

Cartman(18192) pic



What is wrong with God being responsible for Evolution?

At first I thought this would be a debate for only Theists, but I realize that it can also pertain to Atheists.  We keep having debates about whether Evolution is correct, but why is there so much opposition?  What is so weird about God using Evolution to create all life?  For Atheists, is there something about Evolution that would not allow God to be responsible for it?  I just don't know why it has become God vs. Evolution when everything else we have discovered is the way God does it.

Add New Argument
2 points

It's because the Bible specifically states the world was created around 10,000 years ago and that Eve was made form Adam's rib and Adam himself just appeared out of thin air/dust/mud.

GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
2 points

Do you think that the only argument for God is in the Bible?

2 points

Look at who you are responding to, he doesn't think.

Hitler(2364) Disputed
0 points

God with the capital 'G' refers to a name, not the lower-cased entity. The lower-cased entity doesn't exist outside of storybooks anyway.

1 point

Incorrect, sir. The English translation guves credence to such an interpretation. The Hebrew (or greek, not so sure anymore) makes note that the time of creation is unquantifiable, in other words, a very long time. Also we don't know the authors intention. It could simply be metaphorical.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
4 points

That's religions favorite ace in the hole. Anything is metaphorical when it doesn't stack up with science. So maybe God is just a metaphor? If that's the case he isn't responsible for evolution, evolution is responsible for him.

Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Time isn't metaphorical.

1 point

We'll the oldest Humanoid fossils are 6-7 million years old. Also Earth is 4.54 billion years old. And if everything was made 10,000 years ago we mammals wouldn't be here yet, also the world will be covered in Water.

1 point

I think that you are taking the bible far too literally. It's not meant to say that the world was created here, why, and how, it's just supposed to give possible teachings of how life should be lived.

The Bible is not a history book, it's a book of teachings. And really. Just because the history of a book of stories doesn't match up doesn't make the book in itself useless.

I personally think the Bible should be read as a book of fables, with many morals. So, there is nothing wrong with God being responsible for Evolution, i just don't think it's really relevant at all to the Bible itself.

Note: I do not follow the teachings of the Bible, just trying to make a good debate here

Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

If you read the Bible as a book of fables, you wouldn't live by a work of fiction anyway so what is your point?

2 points

I've heard it said that science answers "how" questions while religion answers "why" questions. I think, throughout history, religion has always tried to answer both. The motions of the heavenly bodies, the causes of sickness, of earthquakes, of lightning, rain and the seasons have all had religious explanations at one time or another. It is only after a few hundred years of scientific advancement that we can confidently conclude that most religions "how" answers were completely wrong, having been replaced with testable and consistently accurate naturalistic explanations.

The problem is that devout religious followers tend not to embrace having their long held beliefs challenged by contradictory evidence (just ask Galileo). A belief predicated on the perfect words of the creator of the universe probably shouldn't contain any errors or contradictions of any kind, or else the whole belief might be called into question.

This is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes in; the ramifications of which come into direct conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious creation stories. If you can't take your religion's creation story seriously, and must instead interpret it as allegory or metaphor or mythos or whatever, then how can you be sure that other portions of your religious doctrine aren't also allegory or myth? By what methodology do you determine which of your beliefs are based on fact and which are based on fiction?

The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile. They cannot afford to accept any error or contradiction in their holy doctrine even if it means turning a blind eye to evidence and reality to keep their beliefs intact.

1 point

The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile.

The funny thing though is that they have already given up many many inches. Like you said, they had explanations that have all been wrong. I guess it never gets easier to give up on an explanation.

Grugore(849) Disputed
1 point

"I guess it never gets easier to give up on an explanation."

Yeah. Just ask any evolutionist. Evolution is a theory without any real evidence to back it up. But people still cling to it, because the alternative is abhorrent to them.

1 point

I don't see a reason why Christians can't believe that God uses Evolution to run the world. It isn't like we have God vs. electricity, God vs. fire, or God vs. gravity. Why can't Evolution be another scientific discovery that God is responsible for? Why is it that Evolution is the scientific discovery that conflicts with God?

kaveri(319) Disputed
1 point

because in the ultimate book of Christianity a.k.a bible is clearly stated that first man did not developed by was created by using mud and magic.

1 point

But protobionts likely formed into cells in mud and clay. And isn't the development of life a kind of magic?

Grugore(849) Disputed
1 point

Could it be because the theory is just plain wrong. Even many non Christian scientists disagree with it.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

There aren't many scientists who disagree with Evolution. It is a small handful. Plus, the number that don't agree are highly overblown. If Evolution were wrong it would be easily disproven. If Evolution is wrong you should be able to find something that can't possibly happen if Evolution were true. That's how you demonstrate it is wrong.

0 points

Another reason asides from the one i posted in my own comment is that, evolution says we evolved from another species. A species that apes also evolved from. Christians don't want God to be an ape like being, they want him to be human just like them.

1 point

I don't get why it is so bad to be closer to animals. People don't want to associated with lower beings.

trumpet_guy(502) Clarified
0 points

Well one of the requirements for evolution is death. Many fundamentalists hold the interpretation that death didn't happen till after the fall of man.

1 point

Many fundamentalists thought witches needed to be hunted down and destroyed. Many fundamentalists denied the Earth was round. Some fundamentalists think God hates fags and they should picket the funerals of soldiers. One thing I can almost guarantee: fundamentalists are wrong.

Most of the Garden of Eden story would have to be considered symbolic somehow. Or, ignored completely.

1 point

If someone wants to believe that a god used evolution as some sort of tool that is fine, if they want that taught in schools as science then I have a problem.

Evolution is a scientific theory and tacking a god on there as being responsible for the process is not scientific, the idea of a god controlling the process cannot be tested.

GuitarGuy(6096) Clarified
1 point

I don't see why theistic theories can't be taught alongside scientific theories. At the end of the day, they're both just theories. At least it would help keep children away from a one track mind.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

They are not both theories. Creation is a story. They shouldn't be taught alongside, but as separate stories maybe.

J-Roc77(70) Disputed
0 points

A scientific theory starts as a hypotheses. This idea is testable and after thorough examination by many disciplines it can be adjusted, tweaked to fit what we observe more accurately. If the resulting hypotheses survives enough tests it may be upgraded to a theory, meaning it is a very robust explanation of what we can see and that has withstood many tests from many disciplines.

In this way you cannot say both ideas of creation stories/evolution are theories and equal as one cannot be tested. To try conflate them as both theories defies what a scientific theory is and is academically dishonest. To claim they are both theories either diminishes what the term theory means in science or elevates the other idea to a status in science is cannot hold.

1 point

God was made in man's image. A perfect design, by the perfect designer.

Not made inferior to become in the image of God.

1 point

Thats the problem with most Atheist, they are more arrogant then the delusional theist that believe in magic, most atheist go by this logic, "we have no proof so it's not real" and I agree but only to a certain extent.

No one on this planet can tell me for sure that there is a God or that there isn't a God, only a fool would say such a thing, there are things our simple monkey brains can't understand and one of those things is what created or how did all the elements that created the particles for exsistence to even happencome come from, how did something come from nothing, some scientist say that this is the case, but those scientist again are missing the point, how does nothing exist, the concept of nothing had to come from somewhere.

So to your question, can God or what we would call God have created evolution and the answer is YES and to tell you the truth this is more logical then nothing, but again we have no proof so we must logically say we do not know.

1 point

The problem I have is that the reaction that seems to come with religious people. For example "A camera has a creator, therefore universe has a creator". There are massive jumps in logic for religious people and an Atheist admitting that a God is possible would probably lead to a massive jump in logic. So, I can see them being hesitant to admit that.

But, I still think it is less delusional to say you aren't open to the idea of a God existing as opposed to saying you aren't open to the possibility that the Bible isn't accurate.

1 point

That's what I believe. I don't imagine God as a bearded man in the clouds though. I also don't think humans were made in God's image, because I think it is very unlikely that we are the only highly intelligent species in the universe. I don't even know if "god" is the right term to use, because that is often associated with religion, specifically Abrahamic religions.

I don't think religion should be the deciding factor on what "God" could be. Many people look at this world and see all of the flaws, but if we live for eternity anyways, wouldn't our lives on earth seem very minor?

Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

You keep saying what your 'god' is not, you conveniently avoid describing what your god actually is.

GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
1 point

I've already described what I think my God is in several debates. I even described "my god" in one of your debates and you agreed with me. I also gave my description of "God" to Cartman in the past, and considering this is Cartman's debate, I don't feel the need to go into any details.

GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
1 point

I've already described what I think my God is in several debates. I even described "my god" in one of your debates and you agreed with me. I also gave my description of "God" to Cartman in the past, and considering this is Cartman's debate, I don't feel the need to go into any details.

1 point

It's not God's way of creating things. Evolution is man's thinking and way of where life came from. God's way is the better way then man's. So Creation is the better explanation then Evolution. Nuff said, and I am out.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

What are you talking about? Creation doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't say He created each animal individually, it just says He created them. What method did he use? Did He create a system where all animals are related? He certainly created a lot of animals together. Evolution explains the "how". Where is the "how" of Creation? Maybe the "how" for Creation is Evolution.

Vermink(1943) Disputed
0 points

Creation is the better explanation then Evolution

Oh I hate to disagree but the belief that an unproven god created the world in 6 days is harder to get your head around than evolution/natural selection it is the adaption of an animal to its environment and makes sense. If a modern horse had the same four toes as the earliest recorded horse did it would be extinct natural selection adapted its hoove to suit it's new size and environment. Creation can be easy for say a child (not ment to sound hostile just an example anyone can get there head around it really) to get around because there really isn't much explaining to go along with it or evidence to back it up, evolution yes can be long winded with complicated explanations but once you start to understand it it becomes easier to get your head around. I think Christians are fully capable of believing evolution considering the early scripts didn't say specifically "day" it said "yom" which can mean any length of time so god could have done the creatures an plants through evolution upon millions and millions of years.

1 point

Oh I hate to disagree but the belief that an unproven god created the world in 6 days is harder to get your head around than evolution/natural selection it is the adaption of an animal to its environment and makes sense.

Well, I don't know about that. Saying a magical being snapped it's fingers and everything was created is a way easier explanation. Why go through the hassle of trying to figure stuff out? Sorry for the sarcasm.

1 point

Because there is no room for a god, the weakest die and the strongest survive.

Not necessarily the strongest. Just those that fit best in their niche .

That God needed 7 million years. If he is this creator he could have sped up the whole process.

1 point

Maybe He did. Darwin thought the Cambrian Explosion was a lot faster than expected, maybe that was God acting to speed things up. The process could have taken 70 million years without Him. You never know.

Kazerian2001(393) Clarified
0 points

Toooooouuuuuuucheee. You got a good point man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that theres no evidence for it whatsoever and it presupposes an unfalsifiable fairy tale?

1 point

OK, reasonable stance. Do you look down on people who use God to make themselves happier?

Client444(61) Disputed
1 point

Would the unfalsifiable fairy tale be evolution? If so, I think you're on the right track.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is not unfalsifiable. Find a fossil of a creature in a different rock layer than expected. What is falsifiable about a being that is described to exist in a place that can't be observed at all? Something being true doesn't make it unfalsifiable.

MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Of course evolution is falsifiable.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution

AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
1 point

No it's called Christianity you've probably heard of it. .

The only reason I don't believe god is guiding evolution is because I don't believe in god in the first place. There something being wrong with god being responsible for evolution might depend on what specific god you are talking about.

Because you can't posit a god unless you prove it exists and you can't say it caused evolution until you prove it did. Also because it says nothing of it in the bible, the basis of the entire religion. I'm not saying the bible is true but if you can't at least back your beliefs up with that then saying god caused evolution is the equivalent of being pulled out of your ass.

1 point

Presuming a god unaffiliated with religions which incorrectly assert the age of Earth or contain creation myths expressly contradictory to evolution, there is no inherent contradiction between the ideas. Of course, the very idea of god is fallacious but that is another debate entirely I suppose.

1 point

I just think nature and life will find a way, and that it is far too complex for any entity to think of or make themselves, even "god". God is a lazy term used when people don't know the real reason something happens, or cant explain something. God is an excuse for ignorance and we should always try to find the answers rather than say "god" and stop learning.

2 points

It does seem like much of the time giving credit to God causes people to stop looking for knowledge. Good point.

1 point

If god created everything including causality, laws of the universe, etc., then the process of evolution only exists because of him.

Nevertheless, the Abrahamic God is probably not responsible for evolution unless if you ignore all the mistakes/contradictions to his existence.

1 point

The fact that there is evidence of evolution forces you to ignore all the mistakes/contradictions of the description of the Abrahamic God, right?

flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

Well, you could always start a new religion about a god/entity that created the universe through the big bang, created life through some popular abiogenetic theory, and created man through the process of evolution.

0 points

God being responsible for evolution is the most logical conclusion one can draw. Just think about it. Nothing, and I mean nothing in the natural world is perfect EXCEPT evolution. How do I know evolution is perfect? Easy, every time someone brings up a flaw or questions how this or that could happen, there is always an explanation that can't be disputed. It happens on this board and many others. Evolutionists have the answer to everything. The fossil record is perfectly set up, the "tree" is absolutely perfect from single cell organism to human beings.

Also, all 10 million or so species have a perfect explanation as to how they came about and how they survived. Body parts all came into existence perfectly. I can go on and on. The only reason humans are here after almost 4 billion years is that God guided the system to perfection.

I know all the evolutionists on here agree with me that the process is perfect. I myself have made numerous inquiries as to the perceived problems with evolution but each and every time someone on this board has come up with an answer that evolution is beyond flaws or problems. You can't even question weather evolution is the only possible answer or you are called ignorant and stupid or delusional, etc.

Since evolution is perfect then God exists, since perfection can't be achieved except through God. If evolution has problems it has never been discussed by the people who believe in it on any message board.

1 point

Apparently you have had some bad experiences why people questioning your faith. It is funny that you are upset that you aren't allowed to question Evolution when you are actually upset because you believe that Evolution questions your faith.

Here are some problems that you seem to misunderstand:

A) Evolution is not perfect. It is the best explanation for how things work, but it can change.

B) If you feel that you are being given an answer that can't be disputed it is probably just coming from a jerk. You can try to dispute it all you want, but it is the Theists that say "God did it" and that can't be disputed. Evolution has a lot of explanations.

C) The tree of all organisms is not perfectly laid out, there is still research to find all of the tree.

D) It is delusional to suggest any alternative to Evolution that relies on a story of unknown origin without being able to observe anything from the story in the present. If you had a reasonable counter proposal to Evolution that used some kind of natural processes go for it.

Science usually finds data, draws conclusion, and presents them. After that the idea is thrown out if there is more data that makes it wrong. Evolution has suggestions for how to completely disprove it.

Creation presents a story, then Theists look for data to support the story. Then, only present evidence that supports the idea. If there is data that shows a problem with the story, Theists ignore it. For instance, Ken Ham has to throw out the entire study of historical science to even have a chance of questioning Evolution.

I am sorry that some Evolutionists make you feel bad about your faith.