Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

Introduction Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. While Pro as the instigator (of a positive resolution) has the Burden of Proof, he asked that I begin my case in Round 1. In this debate, I will be arguing that macroevolution (referred to simply as "evolution" going forward) is more logical than Creationism. Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution refers to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. To exemplify why evolution is more logical, I will be utilizing scientific theory and the scientific method. This is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory [1]. I will prove that evolution meets the criteria of the scientific method, whereas creationism does not. Criteria of a Scientific Theory [2]- Consistent (internally & externally)- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)- Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)Evolution is ConsistentEvolution does not contradict the laws of chemistry or physics or other physical sciences. Additionally, there is essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute [3, 4, 5]. We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. Questions about evolution do not verify creationism.Evolution is ParsimoniousEvolution is the genetic change over time. This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable.Evolution is UsefulDenial of evolution amounts to denial of the foundations of modern biology. Evolution explains anatomical and biochemical similarities between different living organisms, including the vestigial components; why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development; why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function; drug resistant bacteria; ring species; biography; the fossil record, etc. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the explanatory framework provided by the theory of evolution, the biological sciences would be disjointed and much within biology would not make sense [6].Evolution Can Be Empirically TestedIn order to test a theory, you must first make a prediction by utilizing information to infer or explain past events or physical states. You then devise a way to test the theory and see if it adds up. Not only is this possible with evolution, but it's been proven and explained to the point of being near universally accepted by scientists. Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity are theories. However we're able to prove gravity through explanation. We can do the same with evolution. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is simply how things happen in nature [7]. Evolution can and HAS been tested.Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and CorrectableThe theory of evolution has evolved over time depending on the latest evidence to emerge. Today it is indeed a different theory than the one Darwin has described, and we can expect it to change and develop even further considering there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the theory. However, none of the observable facts stand contrary to the idea of genetic change over time. Additionally, there are innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [8, 9, 10]. It is also possible to falsify evolution, meaning if it were actually done then evolution would succumb to intellectual defeat. However none of the presented evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists - 95% of them [11], and does not disprove the theory anyway but merely challenges it.Evolution is Progressive and TentativeThis is self-explanatory. Austin Cline best explains, "The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution" [2].Criteria of the Scientific Method - Observation- Hypothesis- Testing- RevisingObservation The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent [2].HypothesisA hypothesis about observable changes in nature and its causes has been made regarding macroevolution.TestingThe test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution [7]. Also, even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species?Revising a.k.a. More Testing of HypothesisThe apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented [12]. Additionally, various experiments confirm the process of evolution in fish [8] and lizards [9].Origins of the Universe While not explicitly stated in the resolution (or opening round), Pro apparently wants to debate competing theories regarding the origins of the universe. To win this debate, all I would have to prove is that the Judeo-Christian God creating the universe per Creationism is not likely. However, I will discuss some competing theories or challenges as discussed by various scientists and philosophers (more in the upcoming rounds due to character limitations). For example, Immanuel Kant posits: If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage?In order to think about the origins of the universe, we need to observe and resolve Einstein's general Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. Stephen Hawking argues that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, per se. Hawking explains: "Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate" [13]. Thus to ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question; the beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science for which we can try to reconcile theories with evidence. In the upcoming rounds, I can expand on this theory and/or competing theories; Pro will have to prove that his theory is most plausible and supported. ConclusionExtraordinary claims require evidence. There is little to no evidence supporting creationism; the alleged evidence does not meet the criteria for the scientific method. This is important as the method exists to elicit truth by measuring data to undermine bias.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...