# Creationists Call for Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2000, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324 "2000-10-02T12:45:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/81 "2000-10-05T11:42:41Z")
Nav said: > [@](#): > > My concern is for those on the materialist side of the debate sometimes take their non-supernatural philosophy to the extreme, and become as procrustean as those in the creationism camp. Could you give some specific examples to help clarify here? I think it would really help. > [@](#): > > In the end, the question of origins on BOTH sides of the table defaults to a faith based argument. You act like we are practically in agreement on these things, and then you go and make a ridiculous statement like this. Science is not “faith,” Nav. Science is based on evidence. Evolution is science. Now we put those all together and we most certainly do _not_ come to the conclusion that evolution is based on faith. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/82 "2000-10-05T13:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > “…And certainly, there’s no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion … And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” - Michael Ruse My point isn’t that evolution on a micro-level is false. My point is that taking evolutionary theories and saying that they define the origins of life with no other alternatives is a faith based statement. Until we can repeat an event that demonstrates abiogenesis, or panspermia, or any other Neo-Darwinist theory we are left with faith based assumptions that nothing supernatural happened. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/83 "2000-10-05T14:06:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Until we can repeat an event that demonstrates abiogenesis, or panspermia, or any other Neo-Darwinist theory we are left with faith based assumptions that nothing supernatural happened. We also have no evidence that the world wasn’t created last Thursday, but you don’t see that caveat in every scientific treatise. We have evidence for what happened, and we don’t know all the answers. But we have no evidence for anything supernatural, so it doesn’t enter into the picture. Faith has nothing to do with it, there’s no evidence. And you don’t need to repeat something (can you create a star going supernova?) to know lots about it. What you are saying essentially is unless someone is there to see the actual event of abiogenesis, we’ll never have proof. If we create abiogenesis in the lab, I fully expect Creationists to say “It could have happened that way, but A) we don’t know for sure if that is what happened and B) it just shows that you need intelligence to make abiogenesis happen.” ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/84 "2000-10-05T14:18:53Z")
Here is a question for you, what would evidence of the supernatural look like? Hypothetical: Something supernatural happened. Naturalist: We don’t have any idea what happened, but we’ll continue to investigate until we can nail down a naturalist theory that will cover us. Theist: We don’t have any idea what happened, it could have been supenatural, we’ll continue to investigate for natural causes, since that is what science limits us to, but we may never be able to explain it. RE: abiogenesis, shouldn’t a scientific theory be falsifiable, and testable? Instead, it seems to me, it is thrown on the table with no evidence except for the presuppostion that life must have arose from pure chance alone. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/85 "2000-10-05T15:08:49Z")
1. Abiogenesis has no relationship to evolution. The theory of evolution is in no manner dependent upon the ultimate origins of any particular lifeform. 2. Science has no means of determining whether a supernatural event has occurred. Asking “how would science prove a miracle happened” is like asking "how do the 10 commandments account for the multiple worlds scenario(s) in quantum mechanics. 3. Asking science to supply proof that your religion is correct seems, from an outside perspective, both foolish and limiting to your theology. 4. If science succeeds in creating am abiogenetic event under controlled conditions it would not demonstrate that that is how life actually originated on this planet. It would not demonstrate that that was the only manner in which life could originate. It would not demonstrate that God had no part in the origin of life on this planet. It would, however, demonstrate that no supernatural agent was **necessary** to explain the origin of life. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/86 "2000-10-05T15:20:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Hypothetical: > Something supernatural happened. > > Naturalist: We don’t have any idea what happened, but we’ll continue to investigate until we can nail down a naturalist theory that will cover us. > > Theist: We don’t have any idea what happened, it could have been supenatural, we’ll continue to investigate for natural causes, since that is what science limits us to, but we may never be able to explain it. How condescending and insulting to naturalists. Care to try: Hypothetical: Something happened. Naturalist: We don’t know what happened. We will investigate by proposing testable hypotheses and experimenting to see whether the hypothesis matches observed results. Theist: We don’t know what happened. We may find a natural explanation. It may have a natural explanation which we are not able to find. Or it may have a supernatural explanation, though we have no tool other than faith to arise at that conclusion. Dishonest Theist: You don’t know what happened. Therefore we will cal it supernatural. If you develop a natural explanation, we will refuse to acknowledge it, even if we must misrepresent the evidence, make false claims, or engage in sophistry to attack your position. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/87 "2000-10-05T15:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Abiogenesis has no relationship to evolution. The theory of evolution is in no manner dependent upon the ultimate origins of any particular lifeform. Agreed. Now is abiogenesis a scientific theory? > [@](#): > > 1. Science has no means of determining whether a supernatural event has occurred. Asking “how would science prove a miracle happened” is like asking "how do the 10 commandments account for the multiple worlds scenario(s) in quantum mechanics. Agreed. > [@](#): > > 1. Asking science to supply proof that your religion is correct seems, from an outside perspective, both foolish and limiting to your theology. Agreed, never asked for a scientific proof my _my_ religion, or my theology. To the contrary, I’ve alway approached _my_ faith and theology as faith based. > [@](#): > > 1. If science succeeds in creating am abiogenetic event under controlled conditions it would not demonstrate that that is how life actually originated on this planet. It would not demonstrate that that was the only manner in which life could originate. It would not demonstrate that God had no part in the origin of life on this planet. It would, however, demonstrate that no supernatural agent was **necessary** to explain the origin of life. Agreed. Again, is abiogenesis a scientific theory? ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/88 "2000-10-05T15:33:48Z")
> [@](#): > > How condescending and insulting to naturalists. Mea culpa, I truly don’t try to be condescending, just seems to pop up now and again, thanks for the correction, I’ll accept your revision. Would you like to take a stab at a dishoenst naturalist? Or would that be condescending? Or are they extinct? ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/89 "2000-10-05T17:37:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > \*\*Again, is abiogenesis a scientific theory? > \*\* Abiogenesis is hardly more than our best guess, using deduction and Occam’s caveat against multiplying entities. As theories go, it has little evidence to support it other than deductive reasoning and some molecules that self-assemble. However, even abiogenesis is not something that rules out God, or his taking an active part in causing life to be. It certainly rules out an extremely literal reading of Genesis, but then again so do physics, cosmology, geology and a host of other disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/90 "2000-10-05T17:40:10Z")
Sure: Dishonest naturalist: I know what happened. I will accept no data whihc might contradict my knowledge, even if that data is well supported and the results are replicable. > [@](#): > > Agreed. Now is abiogenesis a scientific theory? I can think of several scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis. Due to the inexact nature of the english languag these may be called theories in some circumstances. None of them, certainly, are supported by enough evidence to consider them widely accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/91 "2000-10-05T17:42:02Z")
Pretty much my thoughts too, but you didn’t answer my question. ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/92 "2000-10-05T17:43:33Z")
That was a response to Phtalis. Spiritus, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![MrMcPlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMcPlad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMcPlad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/93 "2000-10-05T21:56:35Z")
> [@](#): > > 1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: > 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. > 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. > 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. > 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. > 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. > 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. > 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. > 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, > 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. > 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. **John 2:1-11** M: How long does it take for wine to ferment? M: Of what quality was Jesus’ wine? M: How long had Jesus’ wine taken to ferment? M: If a modern scientist were to examine Jesus’ wine and compare it with another wine, would he be able to tell the difference in fermentation time? M: Could Christ (or God) create something else with an apparent history in a short amount of time? M: Could He do this with an entire world? ---
**Author:** ![Palm\_Cove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@Palm\_Cove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palm_Cove)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/94 "2000-10-05T22:08:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > \*\*Pretty much my thoughts too, but you didn’t answer my question. \*\* Oh yes they did, Very precisely. You however, are still to come up with ANYTHING that might support creationism ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/95 "2000-10-05T22:36:15Z")
> [@](#): > > You however, are still to come up with ANYTHING that might support creationism Didn’t know I was required to do that, since Creationism isn’t a ‘scientific theory’ there is no evidence… :rolleyes: wait, neither does abiogensis… ---
**Author:** ![Palm\_Cove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@Palm\_Cove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palm_Cove)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/96 "2000-10-05T22:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > [B > Didn’t know I was required to do that, since Creationism isn’t a ‘scientific theory’ there is no evidence… > > :rolleyes: > > \*\* Am I the only one missing something in your logic It appears that you don’t wan’t to take any notice of the massive amount of evidence to support evolution, beacause it interferes with your wish to believe in myth and magic. ---
**Author:** ![JDeMobray](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@JDeMobray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDeMobray)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/97 "2000-10-05T23:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Palm Cove \* > \*\*It appears that you don’t wan’t to take any notice of the massive amount of evidence to support evolution, beacause it interferes with your wish to believe in myth and magic./B] No, I believe at this point he’s stopped talking about evolution entirely. He’s now going off on whether or not abiogenesis is a scientific theory or not. If someone were to reply “yes” the response will, of course, be “See, all the scientists believe that abiogenesis is just as much a fact as evolution, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it. Science is a faith!” When a poster responds by trying to clarify the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, the poster is ignored. Note: As a beliver in evolution, I’m as tired of this one as Biblical literalists must be of being asked “Is Ghandi in heaven?” ---
**Author:** ![JDeMobray](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@JDeMobray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDeMobray)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/98 "2000-10-05T23:08:04Z")
. . . And almost as tired as I am of **repeatedly screwing up the code on _MY OWN DAMN MESSAGES!!!_**. Must remember ‘preview’ Must remember ‘preview’ ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/99 "2000-10-05T23:27:12Z")
okay… I believe in God. I believe that he had something to do with the origin of life on this planet. I also think that the evidence for evolution describes the change _within a species_ by smaller changes in genes, and/or DNA. I’m skeptical that the evidence of evolution adequately describes the origins of life on this planet. I think magic is really '_the hand is quicker than the eye’_, and that a myth is a really neat story. Does that make it clearer on what I believe and disbelieve. ---
**Author:** ![JDeMobray](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@JDeMobray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDeMobray)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324/100 "2000-10-05T23:33:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Navigator \* > \*\*I’m skeptical that the evidence of evolution adequately describes the origins of life on this planet. . . \ > > . . .Does that make it clearer on what I believe and disbelieve.\*\* Yes it does. However, as has been pointed out to you before (if not here then definitley over at the Pizza Parlor), evolution has absolutely nothing (zero, zilch, nada. . .:)) to do with the origin of life on the planet. Evolution, quoting from the Pizza Parlor thread, is "The change in allele frequencies within a population over time. (An allele is one variant of a gene; e.g. the gene for eye color has blue, brown, and green alleles.) “Evolution” is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. The mechanism by which evolution operates, however, is a theory. Several evolutionary mechanism theories have been proposed over the years, including Lamarck’s theory of inherited voluntary self-alteration and Darwin’s theory of natural selection." **Thanks tracer**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-call-for-debate/35324.md?page=6)