Friday, February 21, 2014

Evolution vs. Creationism debates are a waste of time!

In light of the latest two debates pitting atheists proponents for evolution against Christian proponents of creationism, I have come to the conclusion that these events are a waste of time, resources, and efforts. The debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham could only be defined as a circus act because of the fact that you can't argue logically against a superstition whose only claim to legitimacy is faith. The second most recent debate between Hector Avalos and Juan Valdes was no different.

One thing I hate most about these debates is how theists try to transfer the burden of proof upon the atheist or evolution proponent. The fact of the matter is that theists refuse to accept the very real, empirical, and objective evidence in support of evolution. No matter what level of education or how many degrees they may hold in theology, apologetics, or philosophy they always resort to a god of the gaps argument. Some present it more eloquently than other but when one is familiar with this argument you can pretty much spot it a mile away no matter how much you try to disguise it.

God of the gaps argument
  • There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
  • Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God. 
The problem with apologists and creationists is that they all begin their arguments with a presupposition that God exists.  The irony of this is that theists insists on proof of evolution by attacking the gaps in our current knowledge but they don't provide the same evidence for God. They begin all of their arguments with the assumption that the existence of God is a fact entirely based on faith. Atheists who don't have any knowledge of theism don't seem to realize that theists consider the knowledge of men to be flawed and the knowledge of God to be perfect and all knowing (omniscient).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that arguing against creationism in a public forum is an exercise in futility. It will never convince a theist to change his beliefs because of the fact that when a theist exposes the gaps in scientific knowledge and the evolutionists replies that we don't know the exact process of such and such a thing in the eyes of the theists the creationists has won. God did it in the eyes of the theists answers all the mysteries and gaps in the sciences. One of the most learned individuals about this matter believe it or not was Adolf Hitler:

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge."  
 "I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."

I think it's almost insulting that a scientist or someone with scientific training has to defend his views against people who are either not scientifically trained or are scientifically trained but are victims of confirmation bias and to compartmentalize their faith from their profession. To date it is a known fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.. But logically the burden of proof is on the claimant defending the position that God exists not the other way around.

It's embarrassing that professional scientists, philosophers,etc. are continually being sucked into these pointless exchanges with theists who in my opinion don't even deserve to be on the same podium with them. In fact arguing for creationism makes no sense at all because the theists has yet to prove both empirically and objectively that this god they worship exists. Even if they could prove someday that "God did it" they still have to prove which god did it. Was it the god of the deist, or one of the other thousand or so gods that man has created for himself?

In conclusion and to sum this post up I believe that these debates are a farce and a circus side show at best.  I don't think theists will gain anything from these exchanges and evolutionists have nothing to learn from the creationist point of view. The best way to counter creationism is to keep lecturing about it and writing about the subject exposing its many weaknesses and its improbability reasonably. 


  1. I finally got around to watching the Nye-Ham debate, and I enjoyed watching it. I learned several things from Nye (which should have been basic knowledge, so I do need to research Evolution further). I have to admit that Ham probably had the better sense of humor overall, and he is actually a smart man (with very dumb beliefs). Bill Nye won the debate hands-down in my opinion. But I see your reasoning here in this blog post, and I think I have to agree with you overall. But I keep holding out hope that some theists will be open-minded enough to learn a bit of science and begin to pay attention more to science than theology.

    1. It all boils down to fundamentalism. It depends on how strong your faith is and how extreme you are as a believer. When I was in the church I was always being constantly warned not to read secular books on science or biblical criticism. i was told that the devil would use those books to ensnare my mind and lead me away from "the truth."

      As an avid reader and lover of knowledge I did not listen to them and read everything I could get my hands no about evolution. I read books on biblical criticism from every angle possible including the Muslim angle. I came to the conclusion that the bible was a book of ancient myths and superstitions. More liberal Christians are easier to deal with because they are more open to learning.