What if: A debate on the creation of the universe

Post Reply New Topic

In literature and academic discussions, the three positions on the topic of evolution versus creation are commonly referred to as follows:

1. Theistic Evolution: This is the position often associated with Pope Francis and the Catholic Church. It reconciles religious beliefs in a divine creator with the scientific theory of evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that God works through the process of evolution to bring about the diversity of life on Earth.

2. Atheistic Evolution: This is the position held by the atheist debater, Dr. Alex Thompson. It accepts the scientific theory of evolution without invoking any divine or supernatural involvement. Atheistic evolutionists rely solely on natural processes and empirical evidence to explain the diversity of life.

3. Young Earth Creationism: This is the position represented by Reverend John Davis, the fundamental Bible literalist. Young Earth Creationists believe that the creation account in the Bible's Book of Genesis is a literal historical record, often interpreting the Earth as being thousands of years old rather than billions. They reject the scientific theory of evolution in favor of a direct creation by God.

As a Catholic and a Christian I (WP user name Fenn) am open to and supportive of both Theistic Evolution and Young Earth Creationism. The most commonly taken Catholic position is Theistic Evolution.

What if . . .

Moderator:
Welcome to our debate on evolution versus creation. We have three distinguished speakers: Pope Francis, representing the Catholic perspective; Dr. Alex Thompson, an atheist and evolutionary biologist; and Reverend John Davis, a fundamental Bible literalist. Let's begin with opening statements.

---

Dr. Alex Thompson (Atheist):
Thank you. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth. As Richard Dawkins said, "The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." Evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various fields such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Natural selection and genetic mutation are powerful mechanisms that drive the changes we observe in species over time.

Reverend John Davis (Bible Literalist):
Thank you. I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which says that God created the world in six days. As Ken Ham, a prominent creationist, stated, "The Bible is the history book of the universe. It is the eyewitness account of the Creator himself." Genesis clearly outlines the creation of the world, and this historical account should be taken as literal truth.

Pope Francis:
Thank you. The Catholic Church holds that faith and reason are not in opposition. In 2014, I stated, "The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator, but rather requires it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve." We can believe in both the divine creation and the scientific evidence for evolution.

---

Moderator:
Thank you for your statements. Dr. Thompson, how do you respond to the idea that evolution requires a divine creator?

Dr. Alex Thompson:
The idea that evolution requires a divine creator is not supported by scientific evidence. Evolution is a natural process that does not necessitate supernatural intervention. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." This does not imply divine creation but highlights the complexity of evolutionary processes.

Reverend John Davis:
I must disagree. The complexity of life and the universe points to an intelligent designer. Psalm 139:14 says, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." The intricate design of living organisms and the universe clearly indicates a Creator's hand.

Pope Francis:
The Catholic perspective is that God is the ultimate cause of all things, including the process of evolution. Saint Augustine said, "Nature is what God does." The Church does not see a conflict between the scientific understanding of evolution and the belief in divine creation. We believe God works through natural processes.

---

Moderator:
Reverend Davis, how do you respond to the scientific evidence supporting evolution?

Reverend John Davis:
I believe that much of the so-called evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Henry Morris, a prominent creationist, argued, "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data." The fossil record, for example, does not provide the complete evidence for gradual evolution as claimed by evolutionists. Instead, it can be seen as evidence of a global flood, as described in Genesis.

Dr. Alex Thompson:
The interpretation of the fossil record as evidence of a global flood is not supported by geological and paleontological data. Evolutionary science relies on empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. As Carl Sagan famously said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence for evolution is robust and has been tested and confirmed through multiple scientific disciplines.

Pope Francis:
The Catholic Church respects the scientific method and the discoveries it brings. We see the hand of God in the laws of nature. Evolutionary science reveals the intricacies of God's creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God."

---

Moderator:
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions. Let's move to closing statements.

Dr. Alex Thompson:
Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology and is supported by a wealth of evidence. It provides a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life without requiring supernatural intervention. As scientists, we must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Reverend John Davis:
I stand by the authority of the Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant word of God. The account of creation in Genesis is a literal historical record. We must trust in God's word above human theories.

Pope Francis:
Faith and science can coexist harmoniously. The Catholic Church embraces the scientific understanding of evolution while recognizing God as the ultimate creator. Faith and reason together lead us to a deeper understanding of the truth.

---

Moderator:
Thank you to all our speakers for this engaging discussion on evolution versus creation. It's clear that this is a complex topic with diverse perspectives. Thank you for joining us.

One and two are the only respectable positions.

Three is fit only to be laughed out of the room. The Universe, the earth, and even the human species, are obviously more than six thousand years old.

Between two and one its virtually impossible to have a debate. You cant prove that god did or did not "guide things along".

But two does not work a scientific model. Scientist pretty much have to operate as if God wasnt involved and life evolved through natural selection without any divine guidance.

There is even another pov. That of "Old Age Creationists" (not the same thing as 'theistic evolution'). Folks who admit that the earth is old but hold that each species (extant and extinct) was specially created. In some ways this pov is even more illogical than YEC, but you do run across advocates of it.

If time travel requires moving faster than the speed of light, maybe the universe was created ten thousand years ago, but so fast that it landed 13.8 billion years ago.

I was just joking above.

Am a total believer in YEC.

Believe that the Universe, Earth, animal, plant, and mankind, were all created in one week in 4000 BC.

Also believe that God got angry and destroyed everything a global flood in 2200 BC.

And I believe that a 600 year old man and his sons and their wives helped to build the Ark (a wooden ship twice the size of the World War Two Liberty ships made of steel ).

But what I dont believe is that Noah's little family did it alone. They must have had hundreds of contractors swinging hammers, and sawing, to help them. But that Noah paid for all of this help...on credit!

My theory is that the Bible glosses over the fact that Noah invented "insider trading" when he built the Ark by profiting from insider knowledge. Noah knew that all his creditors would...drown in the coming flood...so he hired them all on credit knowing that he would never have to pay them back. Slick!

So...

The OP hasnt reappeared to voice his support for one, and or, three!

And neither has anyone else.

Lets get this party started! Come on!

I already stated my beliefs in my original post. I don’t presume to say I know what happened before I was born. It often surprises me how certain some people are about these things. I believe in God because of direct personal experience. The God I believe in made all the Universe, everything in it, and could have done it in six days or a few billion years as He wanted to. If you play a CD you don’t have to start with track 1 you can start with track 5 or 10 or skip around. If you make a clock you are free to set the hands and set it ticking, or leave it alone for a while to tick as you made it. I write software. Knowing what the software can do is not the same as knowing what the software author can do. So, as I see it, this is the basic logical flaw in all the “must” statements that people make when talking about what God can and cannot do. They study the clock, how it seems to tick, and then say “the clock couldn’t do x so the clock maker couldn’t do x”.
Or “the laws of physics don’t allow x so the Maker of the universe couldn’t do x”.

I can point to the encyclopedia Brittanica as proof that abiogenesis is neither proven or disproven, but people who are sure that it “must” be true and God “can’t” have done this or that will still go right on believing what they believe. They would rather believe in quarks and string theory, and that postulates “must” be true so math “must” prove things. They will go on believing that things science has never figured out will be “known soon”.
They wont even consider there might be other ways to know things, or try to see the difference between “science” and “scientism”.

So I will not debate. I will say what I believe and why I believe it.

My main reason for posting this that I am tired of all the strawman arguments I see posted. But the only replies have been insincere sarcasm, and emoticons supporting the same.

The internet, i don’t think, really facilitates real debate. Just digital “shouting matches” that really go nowhere. Few even make a genuine effort at perspective taking or empathy.

I was taught about the existence of God in a Protestant church, so I really wanted to post in this thread.(Trying to start a friendly debate)

I pondered the wording again and again，about 1 hour， and found that I don't have the ability to preach the gospel of atheism to you.After all, the question of whether God exists is beyond the scope of science, and science and God are not in absolute opposition.

So I can only ask you from the side: Why are you sure that the Creator exists without any evidence?

Probably attacking a straw man.：

Last edited by belijojo on 23 Jul 2024, 8:59 am, edited 5 times in total.

If you're positing the existence of God then there is no debate because if you introduce a magical being who can make anything happen into the discussion then anything is possible. I find the existence of God impossible so I can only subscribe to position number 2.

WHAT?
You "said what you believe"??? Where?
You stated what several other folks believe.
And then ....in a wimpy namby pamby way you imply that you lean toward two of the choices offered.

And then you undercut that wimpy statement by ...picking the two most different positions. Atheistic Evolution and theistic evolution outwardly would look very similar. Young Earth Creationsim is the odd man out. Both of the "evolutions" postulate that the earth 4.5 billion years old. Yec holds that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Atheistic Evolution is like saying "its three thousand miles from L. A. to NYC. And there is no God." Theistic evolution is like saying "its three thousand miles from L.A. to NYC. And there is a God". And Yec is like saying "There is a God...and the distance between LA and NYC is two feet". The first two look alike. The last one is wildly different...requires extraordinary claims back up by extraordinary proof. Yet you're claiming that the two foot distance is equally plausible to the 3000 mile distance.

And in THIS post all that you did was belly ache about how you loose every debate you're in on the subject because your opponents use...evidence, logic, and common sense. WAAAAAA. And thats somehow unfair.

So...if you want us to debate you, but to NOT use science, evidence, logic, and common sense, then...what ARE we allowed to use?