I was in a debate and they mentioned the whole thing about how evolution is a theory and takes faith to believe in. I am nowhere near well versed in evolution to be able to defend it against this guy because he is a very good logician, which makes it fun to debate but difficult because I am not nearly as good as him at it.
Anyhow, I didn't bother defending it anyway because it was besides the point but if it does come up again how can I defend it? I saw this: http://www.thinkatheist.com/group/qaar/forum/topics/claim-evolution...

but I'm still unsatisfied with the answer. I think he would call
"If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact."
A red herring, or something. I'm just not sure it would be an acceptable argument. I'm sure some theist has heard and rebutted this argument before. If not, I would be surprised.

Views: 220

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Only one word, protestant. :(
Just an FYI from a former evangelic preacher man, most protestants who know their doctrine will dismiss this, as the pope is at best a heretic, and at worst the anti-Christ.

 I wrote an essay on how "theory" is defined in the scientific sense and how it relates to evolution for my Freshman Composition 2 class. I uploaded it here: http://sharedreviews.com/article/more-than-a-theory-defining-scient...


Hope this helps.

Evolution is a theory, and one is based on evidence, not faith. Studying evidence and drawing conclusions from the evidence is the result of logical and critical thinking, not faith. You don't need to understand the theory of evolution to understand that it is the process that makes it science-based, and not faith-based.  Science stands on evidence. Faith stands on taking someone's word for it. In a court of law we call it hearsay, and it is inadmissible as evidence.
There's a reason pi is an irrational number, but it certainly is not "intelligent design."
That's the problem, I know his skills as a rhetorician are no basis for forming my personal beliefs but I think his skills in the area are much higher than mine and I don't think I will do evolution justice by engaging in debate with the guy. However, if I do not I will have to silently endure taunting which would not be regarded as such since I'm the one who "stirs the pot." I sorta got myself between a rock and a hard place.

No, they have not rebutted it.  But it doesn't prove that evolution is true. It forces them to except that theories are valid beliefs not based in faith, it doesn't force them to accept that evolution is a theory.


Although, that puts them in a position of disagreeing with the entire scientific community, but that isn't abnormal.


It is probably better to avoid the issue altogether, and if your ability to defend evolution fails, just put it off the table, and point out that even without evolution, their position doesn't get any stronger.

Evolution is a theory that is widely accepted as fact. He is wrong to say two things: That we believe IN it, and that to believe it requires faith. First off, no one believes IN evolution, but only only believes that evolution is a scientific fact. Secondly, to believe it as a fact of science does not require any faith as we have tons of evidence to support it, between observation, fossil records, vestigial organs, radiometric dating of the fossils to propose when the ancestors existed and just basic extrapolation. He is trying to compare science to religion which is the same as comparing apples to oranges.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service