Evolution and Creationism can coexist for now.

I would like to note that my opponent accepted with conditions. I wish my opponent had noted his conditions in the comments section or by PM before accepting so we could mutually agree, however, as a good sport I accept my opponent’s conditions. Good luck! Important clarifications and definitions. Definition of Science: “Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. ”[1] Scientific Theory: According to the National Academy of Sciences, “In science, [a theory means] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses … In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. ”[2] Furthermore, theories are just the best explanation available at the time; they can be disproven by new data such as the phlogiston theory and Einstein’s static universe theory. In short, a theory is the best explanation available at the time and is falsifiable by new data. This definition is in contrast to the common usages of the word theory which are often confused in debates concerning evolution (“1. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine> . . . 3: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation”). [3] Scientific hypothesis: Within science, a hypothesis is an “unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. , tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further experimentation. ”[4] The Scientific Method: According to the Oxford English dictionary it is "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. " Evolution: It is undisputed by Pro that evolution is a scientific theory. It is the best explanation available for how the complex life of today has evolved from the simpler life of the past (as evidenced by genetics, the study of the fossil record, and geology). I would like to note that Evolution is a huge concept involving many independent principles. God or “the Gods”: This is an open interpretation of God which includes any God both proposed or not proposed by any human (or non-human) religion in history including any God or Gods unforeseen or un-imagined as yet by any man or religion. Any entity that may have created the universe, the laws of physics, etc. “The existence of God” is a concept that could be described as a scientific hypothesis. Creationism: Within science, the best classification for the various arguments held by creationists is as a hypothesis, since it has yet to be supported by the amount of “extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection” required for a scientific theory. [5] Creationism has many branches, not all of which are in conflict with the theory of evolution. Particularly the creationist hypotheses that “God created the universe”, “God sparked the transformation of monomers to complex polymers on earth (or God sparked abiogenesis)”, “God created the laws of physics which govern chemistry, biology and evolution”, “God, for some unknown reason at some point in the past, created the Earth in a condition which makes it seem like evolution is the most likely explanation for biodiversity (though in fact it was God that planted the fossils where they are and created genetics as a form of smokescreen). ” Many of these branches (and other branches not mentioned) exist independently from each other so that even if one is knocked down, the others may stand. These branches could be described simply as “God may have had a hand on something at some point in time. ” Evolution and Creationism can coexist even within the realm of science. The existence of theories in science does not mean that hypotheses cannot be proposed simultaneously; otherwise the entirety of science would come to a standstill every time a new theory is proposed. The fact is that science marches on, and even the most highly regarded theories can be falsified by new experimentation and data. Furthermore theories can only explain what has been shown by experimentation and analysis; they cannot explain things that go beyond the realm of what has been experimented on. This crux of this debate will center on the statement “I refer to evolution and creationism as explanations for how advanced organic life reached the level it is at now. Including every step along the way. ” Although evolution explains many steps on the way to current biodiversity on earth, it does not explain every single step. The fact is that while evolution is an excellent explanation for much of the biological diversity seen today, evolution is not an explanation for ‘everything’ under the sun. Evolution does not explain the creation of the universe (a necessary “step along the way” for advanced organic life), nor the reason for the existence of the universe. Furthermore, evolution, though the most likely explanation, still does not explain the problem of abiogenesis fully (yet) given that experimentation has not yet successfully proven the totality of abiogenesis, for example the jump from abiogenetic monomers to complex polymers. [6] Finally, evolution does not explain the reason for the existence of the process of evolution itself. Why is it that life evolved to the point where it is now? Why do the laws of the universe allow for evolution to take place, and for life to reach the stage where human beings can exist and observe the universe? Furthermore, the hypothesis of “God” has yet to be disproven scientifically. For these reasons, at least some independent branches of creationism cannot be disproven by the mere existence of the theory and process of evolution at this time. Therefore, the conclusion is that both evolution and creationism can coexist or live in peace with each other for now, until such a time as the science behind evolution disproves every possible creationist based hypothesis. And even then, the falsifiability of scientific theories will allow for perhaps some future version of creationism to dethrone evolution. But –for now- both can coexist peacefully. Thank you for reading my argument. Please vote Pro! [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com.... [2] . http://www.nap.edu.... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com.... [4] . http://books.google.com.pr.... [5] See above definitions for “hypothesis” and “theory”. [6] . http://www.trueorigin.org....