Why do you debate?

[chaoschristian]

This question is directed at Theistic Evolutionists only.

Why do you debate? Why do you take a stand on your position?

I know that I cannot articulate the positions of evolution nearly as well as others. Nor do I believe that I will change a single person's opinion, especially if they've given me no indication as to a willingness to change. My own impetus is to keep creationism and/or ID from being presented as science in science classrooms. These debates help me to refine my thinking and understand counter arguments. I hope to have at least some positive impact on my own school district.

What's your story?

 

[Dannager]

I have to agree with you, chaoschristian. The fact that ID could be presented in a science classroom is unnerving, as it fails to be actual science. However, a mistake many people make is that we debate in order to convince those we debate with. I regularly participate in debate in the all-members Creation vs. Evolution board, and we usually do not have any hope of convincing creationists that their position is not supported. What we can do, though, is present the evidence in the hopes that those reading the boards, the undecided lurkers who are looking for answers, can draw some sort of useful conclusion from what we present.

 

[chaoschristian]

I have to agree with you, chaoschristian. The fact that ID could be presented in a science classroom is unnerving, as it fails to be actual science. However, a mistake many people make is that we debate in order to convince those we debate with. I regularly participate in debate in the all-members Creation vs. Evolution board, and we usually do not have any hope of convincing creationists that their position is not supported. What we can do, though, is present the evidence in the hopes that those reading the boards, the undecided lurkers who are looking for answers, can draw some sort of useful conclusion from what we present.

Yes, I believe it was USIncognito, wasn't, who had that excellent thread. I took the point to heart - always remember the lurkers.

 

[disciple777]

I have to agree with you, chaoschristian. The fact that ID could be presented in a science classroom is unnerving, as it fails to be actual science. However, a mistake many people make is that we debate in order to convince those we debate with. I regularly participate in debate in the all-members Creation vs. Evolution board, and we usually do not have any hope of convincing creationists that their position is not supported. What we can do, though, is present the evidence in the hopes that those reading the boards, the undecided lurkers who are looking for answers, can draw some sort of useful conclusion from what we present.

I am not in favor of teaching creation in the class room. True learning of Science must address these questions: How? Why? When? Why NOT? This is what is known as Critical thinking which is essential to learning of science. Evolution fails to address many issues. This is based on many assumptions, suppositions, and extrapolations.

WE all use the computers. How did this come into existence? There was a man by the name Steve Jobs. He had the intelligence and the knowledge of Microprocessors and electronic circuits. He"DESIGNED" the first apple computer. Prior to this, we only had calculating machines. Steve Jobs "DESIGNED" the first computer.

This is not creation. If a computer is not the product of an " Intelligent Designer" what is it then? Whatever Evolution fails to explain, Intelligent Design has the answer. Intelligent design must not be equated with Creation. Intelligent design is not creation.

I am not in favor of teaching creation in the class rooms. Evolution does not explain many phenomenon. It is still a theory. In this situation, will it not be honest, fair and reasonable to provide any any other alternatives?

Intelligent Designer can be God or he can be an alien from Mars or even a computer programmer. The judge in Dover did not take time to examine what ID is. He only took the sides of the Plaintiffs. The judge is not a Scientist. He is an uninformed layman as far as Science is concerned. He should not have passed the judgement with the half knowledge.

The Discovery Institute even warned the School district not to include ID in the Science Curricullum. They did it anyway.

 

[marato15]

As far as the ruling that they cant teach religion in the classroom, how is it that so few people debate on wether evolution is a religion. If one were to compare evolution and creation we would see that no one here today was there to examine it and whatever we believe about how the world began is accepted by faith. I admit creationism is not science, nor should it be taught as such, but I do have a problem with the complete acceptance of evolution as fact and not what it is, a religion.

 

[chaoschristian]

As far as the ruling that they cant teach religion in the classroom, how is it that so few people debate on wether evolution is a religion. If one were to compare evolution and creation we would see that no one here today was there to examine it and whatever we believe about how the world began is accepted by faith. I admit creationism is not science, nor should it be taught as such, but I do have a problem with the complete acceptance of evolution as fact and not what it is, a religion.

Okey Dokey. I going to start a new thread on this on the general Origins Theology forum, where debate is allowed, and you can make your case there.

 

[Deamiter]

*** Mod Hat On ***
Remember that debate is NOT allowed in the Theistic Evolution forum. Debate IS allowed in the Origins Theology area, and YEC views are allowed unchallenged in the YEC area. Critique of evolution or theistic evolutionists (as was posted above) is unacceptable in the Theistic Evolution forum.
*** Mod Hat Off ***


I personally think it's important to discuss evolution and especially the areas of physics and geology that pertain to the "age debate" (since I'm studying physics, not biology) because there is SUCH a culture of propaganda, lies and misinformation that's being attributed to Christianity! Groups like AIG and the Discovery Institute I see as a huge threat to the nation's future education, but they're not nearly as harmful to the image of Christianity as those who spread the lies about moon dust or other extreme PRATTS.

I've just seen so many of my very intelligent friends reject Christianity when they finally rejected creationism. And the thing is, they generally were creationists right through all the post-secondary classes -- it's when they started generating unique research in the fields of biology or geology that they lost their faith in Christ.

I guess I do see how people can come to the "conclusion" of a young earth, a global flood, and special creation when they start with an a priori assumption that the Earth is 6000 years old and that there WAS a global flood. It's not really my intention to directly attack these beliefs (in most cases) but to strongly defend evolution, and old age physics/geology from a Christian point of view. I've found that the further I move from my undergraduate years in a sheltered Christian university, the more extremely intelligent "former creationists" I find. What bugs me more than anything else, is that many of these have lost all faith in Christ. When I find that the majority of those who lost their faith had never HEARD of a Christian who accepted the scientific conclusions, I feel that through the debate, though I may change precious few minds now, Christ might use me to fight the ultimate battle for these people's salvation!

 

[gluadys]

When I find that the majority of those who lost their faith had never HEARD of a Christian who accepted the scientific conclusions, I feel that through the debate, though I may change precious few minds now, Christ might use me to fight the ultimate battle for these people's salvation!

I bless God for the fact that my high-school geography teacher was a model Christian who fully accepted the geological age of the earth. He was there as a role model for me when I began questioning creationism.

I have seen so many atheists who began as creationists, and who still think creationism is a sine qua non of Christian belief. I don't doubt that without good role models, I would have become an atheist myself.

And that is why I consider it important to engage in these debates. I want to show young people who are starting to make similar inquiries that there is more than one legitimate Christian option.

And to show to what extent unscrupulous organizations have been lying to them.