Evolutionism vs Creationism

Before summarizing and conclude the debate, I will try to address my opponent"s "counterarguments". First of all, it appears that my opponent still thinks that I am trying to prove creationism over evolution as a better theory, so I will ask my opponent to read everything from the beginning more carefully, because he isn"t helping himself. I will try to clarify. I wrote that I would take a position in favor of creationism to debate the following topics: 1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science. 2. Creationism shall be taught in schools. 3. Many evolutionists criticize creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them! 4. Does God exist? (which was ignored, because of my opponent"s theistic beliefs.) I"ve never wrote that Creationism is a better, "truer" or more valid theory than Evolutionism and that I intended to prove it over evolution. OCCAM'S RAZOR Occam"s razor approach is a valid reasoning and very important to the scientific field, where the theories are based in physical evidences. Again, if I was trying to validate creationism over evolution as a scientific theory, it would be a good argument, but I am NOT. What I wanted to point out with the analogies is that even science may be fallible and even when something appears obvious and clear, it may not be. I wanted to explain how it is important to know how to evaluate the absence of physical evidences and how you can't state that all the other explanations are false or irrelevant because there are not as well grounded as yours. "THEOLOGICAL THEORIES" Theological theories are for theology classes, when they don"t have a major role in the history of the science subject that is being taught. When you learn atoms in chemistry, you learn almost every theory, since ancient Greece, which were purposed to represent it, despite the fact that they have already been disregarded by the scientific community. However, it is important to know how science and the human knowledge evolved. In this case, it happens that the previous most predominant theory was from the theological field. Nevertheless, you didn't try to counter any of my arguments and you completely forged my position in regard to the subject. As I wrote before, I've never claimed that creationism was a better theory to explain the development of Life on Earth and that it should be taught instead of evolutionism. I really advise you to read my arguments more carefully, instead of making false accusations. PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION The topic is not "Problems with evolution", but rather, Problems with some Evolutionists. However, my opponent completely failed to understand what we are debating and instead of trying to counter my arguments, he limited himself to prove my case, how some evolutionists can be closed minded and unable to evaluate the evidences... that I"m throwing at him since the beginning. He took my arguments out of the context and completely forged them. I don"t know if he has done it on purpose and consciously or if it is just the blindness that I"m criticizing since the start, that doesn"t let him see what I"m trying to demonstrate since my introduction to this debate. Even so, I'm going to explain my opponent the meaning of the arguments that he didn't understand. "Is the continual search for knowledge something bad?" No! It is what science is all about!! It is what science exists for! What I was criticizing is the fact that the evolution theory is taught as a finished theory and the position that many evolutionists take in this regard. The Evolution theory should be taught as a theory in progress, that is still being studied and developed. The concept of teaching it as "finished" is completely against the scientific model! If you tell children that it is finished, they won't even consider to try to research more about it, it won't seduce students to choose it as an area of study, because they were taught that there is nothing more to discover. I really advise you to reread what I've wrote in all the previous rounds. "And do the opinions of random kids matter?" You completely took this out of context again. Is it because you didn't know how to answer it? Or you didn't really understand? What I wanted to say is that even a bunch of kids felt that there was more to the evolution mechanisms of adaption, that what they were taught. This left them to make really pertinent questions, some of which are still being studied, as I've written. However, the teacher just disregarded those questions, because the theory was already "finished" and it didn't include those mechanisms. My opponent's conclusions are also irrelevant, because they are all about proving evolution over creationism. I want to point out only this statement that he made, "There are no problems with theory of Evolution aside from Pro's own personal dislike for it.". There's nothing right with this sentence. As I've tried to explain several times in the last round, the theory of Evolution is still being developed and still has lots of gaps. Therefore you can't say it doesn't have problems, because it does. However, that's not a bad thing, unless you ignore them! In regard to the last accusation, I'm working in AppEEL since it was founded and I've already produced several thesis in this field. Evolutionism has been my life in the last one and a half years. I really suggest my opponent to reevaluate all the debate and I invite him to know more about this project. http://appeel.fc.ul.pt... Conclusion 1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science. It's a valid statement and it also proves that Creationism can't be consider a scientific theory. God may have a place in us and in our Universe, but for science to keep evolving, God can't be considered part of the solution. 2. Creationism shall be taught in schools. I think it should be taught for several reasons, even if it's just for its historical role in the subject. But again, my opponent didn't present any counters to my arguments. He limited himself to try to disprove it as a competitor to evolution, when I clearly wrote that that wasn't my intention. 3. Many evolutionists criticize creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them! My opponent failed to present any arguments to refute this statement, while helping me to confirm how he is one of them. All the irony expressed in the introduction to this debate, the ridiculous and offensive way as I presented Creationism as a valid theory, the criticism with which I approached evolutionists that didn't take a scientific stand to defend a scientific theory, the fact that I admitted to be an theistic evolutionist as my opponent ... None of this made my opponent realize that I'm completely in favor of science and evolution. He was so blinded by the title "Evolutionism vs Creationism", that he completely failed to understand that it is his stand that I've been mocking and complaining since the start. It is pointless to fight creationism vs evolutionism in the scientific field. Even if there's a God, "He" needs to be disregarded by science, so it may continue to evolve. Trying to prove evolution over and over again is pointless. The capacity to the living beings to evolve is a scientific observation, we don't need to prove the observation anymore. What we need to do is to explain how this evolution happens and which are the mechanisms behind it. But for that, we have to admit that we still aren't aware of all of them and there are still many questions to be made and to be answered in the evolution field of science. Taking dogmatic positions to defend a scientific theory, besides being a show of ignorance and hypocrisy, it's not productive for science. As I wrote before, claiming statements as "If it didn't happen this way we wouldn't be here thinking about it.", is ludicrous. Presenting a theory as finished, when it clearly is not, is also against the scientific principles. If the goal is knowing more and explaining the phenomenons of our Universe, we can't state that we already know the answer. Because if we do, the seek for more knowledge will cease. However, the scientific field is not absolute. This was another important point that I wanted to make clear. Naturally, for the sake of science we have to consider the observations as valid and base our theories on those observations and experiments. But it is also important to keep our philosophical mind in check and to consider the absence of evidences, which may lead to other very valid possibilities and prevent us to make false assumptions. From a life perspective, science is very far from being able to answer to all our questions and problems. It is obsolete to rely only on science to live our lives, because we won't never be satisfied. We will always feel that is something missing...