Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

The Four Strongest Points for Evolution

Post of the Month: October 1999

by Sean Hederman

Subject:    Re: if you were to debate creation vs evolution 
            what are your opinions on the 4 strongest points to fight?
Date:       October 29, 1999
Message-ID: 7vc87a$nee$

In article <>, "Toni" <> wrote:
> if you were to debate creation vs evolution what are your opinions on the 4
> strongest points to fight?

1. Evolution is scientific. It is amply supported by the fossil record. It is consistent with current information on genetics, physics, astronomy, and geology. It has survived through the years despite peer-reviewed research by reputable scientists and institutions for over a hundred years. There are sometimes disputes about the mechanisms of evolution (e.g. punk eek), but there are disputes about the mechanism of gravity. Argument over HOW a thing works is not the same as argument over WHETHER it occurs.

2. Creationism is not scientific. Young-Earth Creationism does not just contradict evolution, but astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, biology, and just about every other '-ology'. Both YEC and OEC provide no testable hypotheses, and no predictions (i.e. nothing of any use). They rely on one source of evidence above all else, whose authenticity cannot be verified, and in most cases is in flat contradiction to everything we know about the world. I think OEC's have got it the worst. They have had to accept that some of the Bible is a pack of lies, which leads one to the question, "Well, what about the rest of it then?"

3. Why is being scientific important? Well, it is the most reliable route to knowledge we have ever tried. We've tried drugs and trances (primitive cultures), asking stupid but deep questions (Socratic), soothsaying, oracles (Greeks), omens (Romans), numerology, astrology(Babylonians), Scripture (Dark Ages), and science (Renaissance to present). Just look at the difference between how effective these approaches were. Our knowledge is doubling every decade. In the Dark Ages our knowedge (well, Western Civilization) fell.

4. Evolution is scientific. Creationism is non-scientific. Evolution is backed up by science. Creationism is contradicted by science. Science is the most reliable way to test the truth of knowledge. Ergo evolution is most probably correct, and creationism is most probably wrong. There are no certainties in science ;)

Sean Hederman

[Return to the 1999 Posts of the Month]

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates
Post of the Month