I will open by answering my opponents socratic questions, although I notice that mine have not been answered.
1.) Does my opponent believe in the Bible?
Yes - I have a bible in front of me, it's real, it exists.
If my opponent is asking if I believe in what is written in the bible, that is another question, and one that I will be happy to answer should it be
2.) To proof what is Darwins theory.
It is not my place to prove or disprove Darwins theory - the title of the debate points to the fact that we are to ASSUME the theory is correct, which
my opponent could have pointed out by answering my socratic questions - which he chose not to do.
I will now focus on aspects of evolution and eugenics or social darwinism in this part of the debate.
The theory of evolution has come quite a long way since Darwin first introduced it, although it must be said that various forms of the theory have
been around since ancient greek times, and possibly before.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal.
Darwin simply brought something new to the theory - Natural Selection, a theory that has long been under fire from various religious groups.
Put simply, Darwin postulated that an organism which was best suited to its environment, and changes in the environment would be more successfull than
species which were unable to change, and that the advantagious evolution would be passed on to its offspring - thus ensuring the continuation of its
If evolution were not a fact, we would not be here now.
Man has evolved through countless millenia, changing slowly, until the present day - this would indicate that changes are constant, although slow.
The changes in our understanding of genetics may indicate a speeding up of this process, and the differences are already becoming more pronounced
according to a recent report which stated:
Humans have moved into the evolutionary fast lane and are becoming increasingly different, a genetic study suggests.
In the past 5,000 years, genetic change has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period, say scientists in the US.
Researchers found evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial
resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations.
This could be due to many factors, some of which will be covered later on in this debate, but the evidence is irrefutable - humans are changing at a
rate faster than anything previously known, and if given enough time, will eventually evolve into different species.
Another factor is modern eugenics
- I am not speaking here of the outmoded, dangerous and flawed theory of eugenics, so popular for many years
until the Nazi's came along and started to experiment on prisoners for the purpose of furthering the master race.
Modern Eugenics is a completely different matter, and is the theory or practice of improving a species (whether human or animal) through breeding,
and/or gene selection.
This practice is already widely used in some regards, as evidenced by the existence of sperm banks, where women or couples can specify or pick the
best criteria for possible inherited traits by looking at the profile of the donor.
Of course, just because a parent is a Nobel prize winner, it doesn't mean the child will be, but it increases the chances.
We have all seen reports about the near future and the stories about parents being able to pick the sex, eye colour etc of a prospective child - and
it must be noted that this could happen only in first world countries, where the level of income, the medical technology and the understanding of
procedures make this a near certainty at some point in the near future - something that third world nations do not share with first world nations.
There are also cultural aspects, relating to how a woman chooses a potential mate, which differ from region to region and country to country and which
I will explore further later in the debate.