TED Conversations

James Zediana

This conversation is closed.

Why is there such heated debate over Creationism vs. Evolution?

Recently Fox News and Gallup posted some poll results:




I found them interesting and wondered why they cause so much discussion. Two theories both sides unwilling to budge. So I devised an experiment and on a Christian blog I posed that evolution was true and on Ted as you may know I posed a debate on evolution and sided against it.

In both cases the arguements were fierce and hence my final question on the subject in TED. I appoligize for those who got heated and there were a few. I thank those who tried to answer.

So for this question I am wondering about why this topic is so heated? Your answers will help my report for school.

Topics: religion society

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 15 2012: As one green belt to another let's talk root-cause (of the passion). There are three possible explanations for life on Earth: 1) God. 2) Abiogenesis followed by natural selection of beneficial mutations over eons of time from a common ancestor. 3) It cannot be proven so don't worry about it. The intensity of debate comes not so much from group 3, but when proponents of groups 1 and 2 go at it great heat is generated and very little light. Why so heated? Simple. . . each side denies the very essence of the other's belief system. To acquiesce is to admit the need to start over, to be born again.
    • thumb
      Oct 15 2012: May I propose another group those who try to fit science into the bible. As indicated in the polls. How do you see them fitting in?
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: I consider the Deistic Evolutionist school to be split between groups 2 and 3 because no proper application of the Holy Bible can support the notion of a self-regulating, godless universe. Not all "science" is at variance with the Holy Bible so there is no problem fitting science into the Bible, unless you remove God to make room for it. Factual science (no, that is not an oxymoron, nor is it redundant) fits perfectly with the Bible. It is the scientific theories falsely called facts that conflict with scripture. Thank you sir!
        • thumb
          Oct 17 2012: Well spoken! Was not trying to incite was just wondering based on the poll.
    • Oct 15 2012: Natural processes are not belief systems.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: Agreed.
        • Oct 15 2012: Therefore natural selection and evolution are not belief systems.
      • thumb
        Oct 16 2012: Again, agreed. Natural selection is a component part of evolution. Neither is a natural process. Both are descriptive titles of a theoretical bio-mechanism whereby all life is said to have evolved from nothing into some undetermined substance then into every lifeform that ever existed, or ever will exist, all for no known cause or reason, and under no known control or design.
        • Oct 16 2012: Natural selection is a de facto natural process. It is also undeniably so. Evolution is the consequence of many natural processes, so I would agree that it is not per se a process, but, since it is the result of lots of natural processes on top and aside and everywhere with respect to each other, it is not a belief system. Thus, it is a mistake to put evolution and creationism (even your particular brand of creationism) side-by-side and call them both belief systems (you said "each side denies the very essence of the other's belief system").

          Of course, you put abiogenesis and universal common ancestry there together, which might work all right for your argument (gives an false appearance of impossibility), but deviates from what people really think and understand and from the many varieties of people's experiences and actual beliefs, combined with their different levels of understanding. I know, not too clear. Anyway, I refuse to put scientific theories and hypotheses, into a "belief system" category. They are not belief systems, they are results, or conclusions suggested/affirmed/reaffirmed by evidences and results, some stronger, some weaker, some conclusive, some inconclusive, some developing at a very quick pace, some so well established that there's little more to add. But again and again, not belief systems.
      • thumb
        Oct 16 2012: We have a topic already and it is not the specific analysis of the elements of Evolution or Creationism. Why don't you post your statement, "Natural Selection is a de facto natural process. It is also undeniably so." as a debate and see what transpires?
        • thumb
          Oct 17 2012: I tried that already.
        • Oct 17 2012: Agreed that this is not the topic. But you equated natural processes with belief systems.

          It is nonsense to start a debate about things that are evidently true. Natural selection is, de facto, a natural process. It is so by definition. Debating this would be like posting something with the title: "red is a de facto colour. It is also undeniably so." Why would I want to expose myself to nonsense coming mainly from creationists who would mistake this with a statement about the origin of species, of life, of the universe, and the existence or nonexistence of gods; or with wannabe philosophers with unreasonable tendencies towards solipsism?
      • thumb
        Oct 18 2012: You, Entropy, have chosen a most suitable monicker to define yourself. By that I am referring to the fact that your participation in this conversation has largely had the effect of moving it toward disarray. I am mystified why you would enter into a debate you consider to be "nonsense". Your mind projection fallacies and your use of kettle logic are inefficient and unproductive. Have you an answer to your own question. . . "Why would I want to expose myself to nonsense. . . with wannabe philosophers and. . .sollipsism? Somewhere in your contributions here have you stated your opinon as to why evolution/creation debates typically tend to be heated? Peace.
        • Oct 18 2012: I have stated why the "debate" is so heated.
          Peace to you too.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.