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:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-most-believe-prayer-heals-45-believe-in-creationism/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

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
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 16 2012: I'm not much of a fan when it comes to analogies but let me try one anyways.
    In your "about me" it states that you are a Nuclear Power plant operator.
    You have a vast number of safety measures and procedures in place around the operation of this nuclear plant.
    If a group of neo-astrologers begins to lobby the government and the education system that astrology is a viable alternative to predicting future events like earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear accidents and it is superior to your safety procedures because you can't predict when something will go wrong, only react to it when it’s too late.
    They further demand that it be taught in schools as an equivalent safety mechanism to your procedures and that it should be put in place in the entire nation’s nuclear reactor plant to better protect us from misadventure. They draw their authority from Genesis, statements by Mathew and the magi interpreting planetary position to portent the birth of Jesus.
    The pro-astrology group forms organizations to slip "predictive astrology" into the schools and want to debate you at every possible time on the predictive ability of their science and the lack of it in yours.
    You know they are idiots but every time you destroy one of their arguments, they simply rephrase it and state it again as if it’s something new. They begin to attack you in the courts.
    You are forced to fight back, knowing that you are correctly keeping the country safe but at the same time appearing belligerent to this group when you debate and when you write books on proper safety procedures.
    Do the deserve respect. No because they are morons and their belief system is absurd.
    Can there be any real debate between the two groups. No, because there is no common ground. One is science and one is a delusion. How do you convince a deluded person that they are deluded.
    • thumb
      Oct 17 2012: I ask you to look in the mirror.

      Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6
      • thumb
        Oct 17 2012: How do you know Jesus said that?
        • thumb
          Oct 18 2012: How do we know Nelson said "Kiss me Hardy", or Ceasar said "Et tu Brute" ?

          :-)
      • Oct 17 2012: Exactly what does that mean. What way. the way to learn about the universe?. I don't think so.
        What truth. The truth about how we became to be on this planet? I don't think so.
        I have a life that does not revolve around adoration of mythical beings.

        Your's was one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen on Ted for some time.
      • thumb
        Oct 22 2012: Hi peter, guess we don't know. In fact I thought et tu Brute was made up by Shakespeare.

        However there is much more evidence both of these men existed than Jesus. In fact there are no records dating back to when he was alive of the existence of Jesus. And as far as we know the gospels were recorded decades after his death. Must be good memories, or magic right, to get even the less fantastic details correct.

        And then you have to decide whether you accept the magical aspects, virgin birth, water walking, ressurections, and claims etc with no compelling evidence.
    • Oct 18 2012: WOW Gordon those were pretty harsh words. You know we always seem to pit Christianity against Evolution. You never hear how other religions view evolution. How many countries teach evolution in their classrooms I wonder? Gordon I really do think that calling others morons, because they view things differently than yourself is what causes these discussions to go nowhere. Belittling others will never gain you a positive response. Personally I believe in both Creationism and Evolution. I view myself as a very small being from a very young species, who knows very little. I believe that would be open mindedness with a dash of humility. I am glad to finally meet someone on TED who is omniscient such as yourself. I hope your next post will be the answer to String Theory.
      • Oct 18 2012: If you would actually read my post I was using an analogy of an obviously debunked "science" of astrology as a stand in for creationism.
        We seem to have a mental block about creationism that I thought could be addressed by looking at it a different way.
        We may be a young species with a small amount of knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we know nothing nor that when confronted by a concept that we find uncomfortable to a pre-existing belief system that we should retreat from it to the supernatural.
        You should get comfortable with the notion that the debate between creationism and evolution will never go anywhere because they are opposites. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution and none for creationism yet the argument that both should be taught for a 'balanced' view is repeatedly made.
        They are also rooted in vastly different frameworks. Evolution is based on science that does not allow for an authority and demands only explainations that are falsifiable.
        Creationism is based on an framework that relies on authoritation points of view and explainations that must be taken on belief with no evidence.
        If you can have a debate within that framework you know something I don't.
        I have no comments on string theory, I find the math too convoluted for me to follow.
    • thumb
      Oct 20 2012: Hi Gordon.
      I have been following this "Creationism in Schools" thing from the UK.
      There is a lot of talk about "religion by the back door" & such like. When I listen to the counter argument it seems that they merely want science in school to be honest. They want evolution to be taught honestly, instead of it being stated as fact. There is a lot of opinion involved with evolution. A evolved from B, B evolved wings etc. & we've got the artists impression to prove it.
      Creationists have no interest in "Creation'ism'" being taught by folks who don't believe it; that would be totally counter-productive. All they are asking is that science, & only science, without personal prejudice, be taught to our youngsters. That seems very reasonable to me.

      :-)
      • Oct 20 2012: I would also like science to be taught honestly. However that includes evolution being a fact and not an opinion, that there is no supporting evidence for creationism or ID as it is called here, and that science accepts no authority figures whose opinion cannot be challenged.
        There is no debate in the scientific community that evolution exists, there never has been since before Darwin.
        Science is now exploring the causes and mechanisms.
        Your statement that creationist have no interest in ID being taught by non-believers is unimaginably uninformed. They want it taught instead of evolution but will accept the current thin edge of the wedge as being taught as an equivalent theory.
        My own point of view is that these people are insane or at least massively delusional.
        Science is not a democracy and does not care about anyones opinion. It requires and relies on only evidence. All theories must be supported by evidence or they are rejected (or downgraded). For example, Newtonian gravity theory was disproven, however at low gravities and low velocities, it still works good so it has been downgraded. However, without Einstein's calculations, your GPS would not work correctly.
        I require only that schools teach the truth as we know today regardless as to how much it disagrees with my own personal world view. Or your personal world view for that matter.
        • thumb
          Oct 21 2012: Well Gordon.
          ""My own point of view is that these people are insane or at least massively delusional. ""

          Where does one begin with someone who thinks I'm insane ? Enjoy your belief; bye!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.