It it my humble opinion that the concept of debate in regards to evolution versus creationism is inherently flawed. The theory of evolution is based upon sound principles of science whereas creationism is based upon philosophy. One can be tested, the other cannot. One can make predictions, the other can only make assumptions. Ergo, the concept of meaningful debate is inherently flawed and cannot produce any meaningful or worthwhile data.

I am interested in hearing what my fellow ATS forumites have to offer in relation to my supposition.

I agree that it is flawed to debate about this topic. Neither argument has proof, and both sides are stubborn. Forbidden Archeology has discovered some pretty unique things that are not taught in school, but it is not main stream.

Science, bless them, they try hard. But they can't prove anything, and it has been shown that we humans haven't changed in possibly millions of years.

If anything it appears that periods of rapid mutation rather than "evolution" are responsible for mass die offs. Not that all mass die offs are due to rapid mutation.

Humans are poorly adapted to most environments on earth at least half the time.

Fact is fact , but interpretation is a question of theory or faith , depending on which side of the coin you may be on .

There will always be something that " can't be proved " or explained and science and religion will form theories based on there faith or best scientific observations .

Thank God we live in a free society where there is room for both perspectives and prosecution for none , because of what they may believe .

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Max_TO]

Originally posted by oppaperclip
I agree that it is flawed to debate about this topic. Neither argument has proof

I respectfully disagree, perhaps the semantics of the word "proof" versus "evidence" lies at the heart of the disparity. You see, science has plenty of evidence for evolution. Science has also made testable predictions based upon the evidence and experiments have borne them out.

The data is out there for everyone to see. The problem is that relatively few desire to take the time to examine the data for themselves. They rely on others to do the work for them and the message gets lost in translation. I surmise that the same problem that exists in the scientific world exists in the religious. Very few religious people desire to take the time to examine their own writings and history, choosing to rely on others to do the work for them.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between science and belief.

You know, I think that when politics, corporations and science joined hands, science suffered. Interesting. Thank you, you are really making me think! Sorry if that seems to come from left field! I tend to be an abstract thinker and I look also at the lack of "faith" in science vis a vis the average person at possibly being related to corporate money and politics (think, mistrust of government).

Originally posted by Max_TO
Fact is fact , but interpretation is a question of theory or faith , depending on which side of the coin you may be on .

Welllllllll, Max, I tend to disagree. A good theory must be able to make predictions. If they don't hold true, then the theory is flawed. Evolution has made successful predictions. Note, there is nothing in there about interpretation! It either is or it isn't.

But, I understand where you are coming from and I, too, am glad we can have a friendly discussion about this topic!

Well it really depends on what you mean by evolution and creationism.

Evolution does not really explain how life began but more about how it has evolved over time. For example selective breeding would not be possible if some parts of evolution were not true and i highly doubt that anyone would argue that the Corn we eat today was made by "god". Some people do not understand what evolution really is and tend to lash out against it due only to a misunderstanding of it. But the creationists are often very stubborn they tend to ignore the ancient astronaut theory, im not saying ancient astronaut theory is correct but it is no less plausable than the god theory. I think the people that stick to the extremes of both sides need to clear the concepts up for themselves.

Don't know if I agree with the way you are linking Philosophy and Creationism but still an interesting idea. Maybe that was not your intention, but I get the feeling you might be going down that road.

Scientific Facts would probably not exist in a world without Philosophy. Scientific facts are only scientific because they are recognised at this period of time as being so. 400 years ago, certain scientific facts were invalidated. 200 years later others were invalidated, 50-100 years ago many others too.

Scientific Facts are bound to change every X amount of years. They are not as concrete and irrefutable as some people take them to be. Also, Philosophy does not need to be modernised to be enjoyed, whereas many can argue that Science does.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

The theory of evolution is based upon sound principles of science whereas creationism is based upon philosophy


That is funny the theory of evolution is a theory and is not based on science as no one can test the idea that a lizard will become a chicken.

No one can test that rain on rocks with some lightning will produce a life form that will self replicate and become more complex over the hypothetical billions and millions of years.

The theory of evolution is just a religion of death and destruction creates new and better life forms.

Nothing in evolution has ever been observed, adaptation and variation are not examples of evolution. Corn is corn no matter how it is changed it does not produce peas.

Mutations are not benifical and any thing that is mutated will be killed and eaten by others as it can not move fast enough to get away nor could it breed with the kind that it came from if it were different, example a lizard with wings would not be able to mount the lizard with out wings.

Acts, I understand your position, but again, politely disagree. Perhaps you are not familiar with the term, "theory". And to say that evolution is not based upon science is completely wrong. However, I respect your right to believe what you will. I do submit that your understanding of the theory of evolution is woefully inadequate. Please do not take that as an insult. I can submit many areas in which my understanding is woefully inadequate, as well!

Perhaps a clarification to my original post is in order. You see, religion lies completely within the realm of philosophy whereas science does not. Does that clarify my original supposition?

I guess I am suggesting that there is no arguing with religion when it comes to the topic of science and evolution in particular. I do find it interesting that when science agrees with a particular tenet of faith, science becomes touted. But when it disagrees, science becomes the villain. This, to me, suggests my supposition has merit. Understand?

I truly appreciate the comments and all of you have been very civil. I hope that we can continue to explore this topic further.

May I ask a question? What does religion, in particular, offer to further our understanding of science? Is that a valid question at all? I look forward to your replies!

Um, empiricism *fundamental to the scientific method* IS philosophy. I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what philosophy actually is.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "Philosophy" comes from the its reliance on rational argument. Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally means "love of wisdom".

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Another thing to keep in mind is that pitting evolution against creationisim/ID is really a false dilemma, as one if prooven to be correct does not mean the other is false. If it is ever shown that there is a common ancestor from which most life forms on earth came that would not mean that there is not god, conversely proof of God would not disproove evolution.
The whole creation and evolution debate is really used as a red herring or a strawman for people to argue about religion.

Thank you, Watcher! Excellent post and I completely agree with you. Philos! Thank you for making your point so eloquently and succintly!!!

Zaiger, I am also in agreement with your point about the false dilemma. Excellent!

Thank you all for responding. Thank you also for giving me more points to ponder. I truly appreciate the time and effort you all put into your responses and I look forward to many more conversations in the future!