RobotGodWeb2

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

On the fundamental question--evolution or creation?--Americans are on the fence. According to one survey, while 61% of Americans believe we have evolved over time, 22% believe this evolution was guided by a higher power, with another 31% on the side of creationism. For some, modern science debunks many of religion's core beliefs, but for others, questions like "Why are we here?" and "How did it all come about?" can only be answered through a belief in the existence of God. Can science and religion co-exist?

  • Lawrence Krauss web

    For

    Lawrence Krauss

    Director, Origins Project and Foundation Professor, ASU

  • Michael Shermer web

    For

    Michael Shermer

    Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and author

  • ian-hutchinson-web

    Against

    Ian Hutchinson

    Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT

  • Dinesh-DSouza-for-web

    Against

    Dinesh D'Souza

    Author, What's So Great About Christianity


    • Moderator Image

      MODERATOR

      John Donvan

      Author & Correspondent for ABC News

See Results See Full Debate Video Purchase DVD

Read Transcript

Listen to the edited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to the unedited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to the Podcast
Lawrence Krauss web

For The Motion

Lawrence Krauss

Director, Origins Project and Foundation Professor, ASU

Lawrence Krauss is an internationally known theoretical physicist. He is the Director of the Origins Project and Professor of Physics at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. Krauss has written several bestselling books including A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012). Passionate about educating the public about science to ensure sound public policy, Krauss has helped lead a national effort to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools. He currently serves as Chair of the Board of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Learn more
Michael Shermer web

For The Motion

Michael Shermer

Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and author

Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and Editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University and Chapman University. Shermer’s latest book is The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (2011). He was a college professor for 20 years, and since his creation of Skeptic magazine, has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, and Charlie Rose. Shermer was the co-host and co-producer of the 13-hour Family Channel television series Exploring the Unknown.

Learn more
ian-hutchinson-web

Against The Motion

Ian Hutchinson

Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT

Ian Hutchinson is a physicist and Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He and his research group are international leaders exploring the generation and confinement (using magnetic fields) of plasmas hotter than the sun's center. This research, carried out on a national experimental facility designed, built, and operated by Hutchinson's team, is aimed at producing practical energy for society from controlled nuclear fusion reactions, the power source of the stars. In addition to authoring 200 research articles about plasma physics, Hutchinson has written and spoken widely on the relationship between science and Christianity. His recent book Monopolizing Knowledge (2011) explores how the error of scientism arose, how it undermines reason as well as religion, and how it feeds today's culture wars and an excessive reliance on technology.

Learn more
Dinesh-DSouza-for-web

Against The Motion

Dinesh D'Souza

Author, What's So Great About Christianity

A New York Times bestselling author, Dinesh D’Souza, has had a distinguished 25-year career as a writer, scholar and intellectual. A former Policy Analyst in the Reagan White House, D’Souza also served as an Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute as well as a Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Called one of the “top young public-policy makers in the country” by Investor’s Business Daily, he quickly became a major influence on public policy through his writings. In 2008 D’Souza released the book, What’s So Great About Christianity, the comprehensive answer to a spate of atheist books denouncing theism in general and Christianity in particular. D'Souza is also the former President of The King’s College in NYC,

Learn more

Declared Winner: For The Motion

Online Voting

Voting Breakdown:
 

62% voted the same way in BOTH pre- and post-debate votes (31% voted FOR twice, 24% voted AGAINST twice, 8% voted UNDECIDED twice). 38% changed their mind (6% voted FOR then changed to AGAINST, 2% voted FOR then changed to UNDECIDED, 7% voted AGAINST then changed to FOR, 2% voted AGAINST then changed to UNDECIDED, 13% voted UNDECIDED then changed to FOR, 8% voted UNDECIDED then changed to AGAINST) | Breakdown Graphic

About This Event

Event Photos

PrevNext Arrows
    PrevNext Arrows

    218 comments

    160|-
    • Comment Link Joe S Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:21 posted by Joe S

      @Tuesday, 04 December 2012 00:14
      posted by Craig Manoukian
      "If we evolved from apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?"

      Craig, under evolutionary theory, today's monkeys and apes likewise evolved from an ancient predecessor. At some time in the distant past, what we see today as "modern" humans, monkeys and apes all shared a common ancestor. It's not that "modern" apes have been around unchanged for millions of years and "modern" humans splintered off on their own separate path.

    • Comment Link hilary fox Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:17 posted by hilary fox

      Robert R. was great! I'm in Mexico and I feel as if I'm there with you!

    • Comment Link Bill Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:03 posted by Bill

      I don't think science refutes the existence of god; common sense refutes the existence of god.

    • Comment Link Bryan Leed Wednesday, 05 December 2012 18:37 posted by Bryan Leed

      Dinesh D'Souza has a great strength in reasoning out all the faith-based aspects of atheism, since atheism is so desperate to wrongly use science as an argument against the existence of God. At which point the faith of atheists becomes scientism; not science, but rather a substitute religious belief that falsely claims science as the ultimate authority, not coincidentally devoid of morality in the yearnings of the atheist believer. There is nothing scientific about the Big Bang Theory, (nothingness explodes to create everything). As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory is an interesting description of how God spoke the universe into existence, out of nothingness and into becoming the universe, from one single point in time, just like the Bible has been saying for thousands of years!

      But Dinesh also has an unfortunate weakness. He is good at debunking atheist reasoning, but since Dinesh has a weakness in choosing to never debate using the Bible, Dinesh is very weak in promoting the Christian faith. Thus, I support Dinesh in his bravery to get into the arena with these debating atheists, but I also feel like Dinesh is missing out on spreading the Gospel. I wish he would start sowing the seeds of the Word of God, at least a little, in these debates. After giving the secular debunking of atheism, why not toss in a little Scripture that agrees with any particular point made by Dinesh?

      I also feel that Dinesh ignores the Bible teachings to his own spiritual detriment, hence his recent scandal of becoming engaged before being legally divorced from his estranged wife. In his public statements on the scandal, Dinesh said he was not aware that becoming engaged while still legally married was frowned upon in Christian circles. Duh! If Dinesh would please study the Bible as a believer, submitting to its authority in his own life, then he would know right from wrong, in Christian circles.

    • Comment Link Quinn Wednesday, 05 December 2012 18:24 posted by Quinn

      People who fight against God and win their temporal argument(s)…lose their soul for an eternity. What a loss!

    • Comment Link Claudia Wednesday, 05 December 2012 18:23 posted by Claudia

      God created science! Therefore all of science wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for God! If he can create something as amazing as science than he can create something as wonderful as humans, "who think because they are learned they know more than god and need not god".

    • Comment Link David P Wednesday, 05 December 2012 18:12 posted by David P

      @Shawn G
      The Christian faith is absolutely not believing in something without evidence. The Bible is the evidence. Can you prove scientifically that George Washington was the first President of the United States? No. You rely on a historical account. Is there a historical account from the time of Jesus that refutes the word written by those who followed him and witnessed his miracles. We have more documents providing evidence of the New Testament than many other ancient historical events that people commonly accept as true. Why is the Bible inaccurate though?

      So what if Hitler claimed to be Roman Catholic and some Germans also claiming to be followers of Christ prayed for him. The Vatican while never denouncing Hitler at the time never prayed for Hitler to live long and kill the Jews. They have apologized for their inaction. Even if they had, the fallibility of man does not mean God endorses something. Man has fallen and gone against God since biblical times when man actually had more direct interaction with him.

      And really? Science proves God to be false. Please show me this new evidence. Please tell me how science can disprove a God who created science. Some of those who you have to thank for knowing what you do were his biggest apologists. Newton wrote more about God and his creation than he did about science. Even Einstein acknowledged the existence of a God because without a God creating a structured universe we can understand and can rely on things to happen, there would be no science.

    • Comment Link Jennifer H Wednesday, 05 December 2012 17:55 posted by Jennifer H

      Renee - last time I checked historical narratives, poetry, prayers, genealogies, parables and the like weren't considered 'kindergarten' level material. Try to be less condescending and maybe more people will listen to you.

    • Comment Link Gil Wednesday, 05 December 2012 17:11 posted by Gil

      Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Evolutions is a fact. You can say it as many times as you want. It still does not change the fact that it is in fact NOT a fact.

    • Comment Link Dave Wednesday, 05 December 2012 16:40 posted by Dave

      Renee: Twaddle! But , remember ,your good heart hasn't been put ther your gene pool to have got this fare it must be hard wired.

    • Comment Link Gary S Wednesday, 05 December 2012 15:01 posted by Gary S

      What if ... what if GOD is simply One Consciousness and we all are comprised in that Consciousness? What if our bodies are nothing more than receptors, like a radio picking up radio waves, only the "waves" are Consciousness itself? What if everyone is right and we all see and hear the same thing but describe it differently?

      What if my radio is tuned to a different frequency than yours and as I describe what I am hearing you firmly and honestly (and rightly so) disagree with me because your in your experience you are hearing something completely different.

      Even if we are listening to the same frequency it's likely our interpretation will be different. Isn't that one of the marvels of the human mind ... to see things from different perspectives?

      What we believe is not relevant. It may stroke my ego to think my frequency is better than the next, but it's not. It's just different. And in the end, we're all tuned in to the same source ... call it GOD ... call it Consciousness ... call it what you will. It's all the same.

      Science is just on another frequency and describes it yet another way.

    • Comment Link Aleksander Rotner Wednesday, 05 December 2012 09:55 posted by Aleksander Rotner

      to Renee Margaux:
      this Creator you are talking about is like a true force of nature, beyond any rationale. It delights me when the weather is nice and my life is pleasant, it annoys me, when the weather turns cold and my life is in disarray. No amount of wishing, praying, pleading or cursing makes any detectable difference to me.

    • Comment Link Scott Wednesday, 05 December 2012 08:46 posted by Scott

      All you have to do is simply read the religion of hitler on wikepedia and see that he used religious beliefs and quotes to GAIN the churches and peoples trust. He was NOT Christian in fact, he rebelled against the church at a young age. In some of his books, he supports the fact that he was AGAINST organized religion. So please, whoever keeps claiming hitler was Christian or Catholic please go read a book.....morons.

    • Comment Link mike Wednesday, 05 December 2012 00:46 posted by mike

      it said: God is the first truth and the last fact; therefore does all truth origin in Him, while all facts exist relative to him. God is absolute truth. Reason alone cannot achieve harmony between infinite truth and universal fact. To science, God is a possibility, to psychology a desirability, to philosohpy a probability, to religion a certainty, an actuality of religious experience. Science stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it puifies religion by the destruction of superstition; but science is not god. Therefore, there never was a conflict between science and religion/God per se. I belong to the camp of intelligent design; besides the other unknown cosmic laws/energy, God creates through science. Proving is the hardest part and the reason for the existence of debates such as these.

    • Comment Link Renee Margaux Tuesday, 04 December 2012 13:29 posted by Renee Margaux

      The 'bible' is a book written on a kindergarten level. Science is the College edition, ready for us as we come to understand the world.

      In my mind, science makes a creator BIGGER. The creation of life in all man and animals is miraculous. Just because we understand it now doesn't change that fact. Every thing science discovers changes things but does not eliminate the wonderment of it. I mean think about it: how amazing and still a bit incomprehensible is the knowledge that the earth is 4.5 billion years and the universe is nearly 14 billion. How clouds form, why the tides exists, why there are mountains and volcanoes, how plants make oxygen, how chemicals react and combine, how our body's work and how similar it is to other mammals YET we are so different, that sea life breathe underwater, that birds fly and soar.... IT'S ALL SO AMAZING... All animal life was created with a brain, we have the gift of reason and free will. To use it in scientific discovery to understand our creator brings us closer in the relationship.

      Love deepens as couples / families discover and grow together. To not participate and accept what we learn can be likened to a child who is afraid to venture outside and really see the world we live in.

    • Comment Link Shawn Tuesday, 04 December 2012 13:24 posted by Shawn

      Craig you just proved a very lmportant point. "If humans evolved from apes, why aren't apes turning into humans still?" That is not how evolution works, you obviously have never studied it, but Ofcourse that is the argument heard over and over again. Read and learn before you try to disprove something. Evolution is a fact. Not just a theory. Germ theory- just a theory but its a fact germs make you sick. Theory of gravity.... Etc etc

      Funny you said science can't get around something from nothing. Lawrence Krauss one of the speakers actually has a book explaining this. I'm sure he will bring it up during his time. Not only is it possible to get something from nothing, it's actually quite common.

    • Comment Link Terry Tuesday, 04 December 2012 12:19 posted by Terry

      This vote is deceptive. I was confused as to what for and against actually were. I wouldn't doubt that some of the fores meant against and vise versa. At any rate, Christians consider religion man's attempt to reach God and relationship God's attempt to reach man. Christians beieve in a relationship rather than a religion. How can science disprove that my relationship with God doesn't exist?!

    • Comment Link Alan Wright Tuesday, 04 December 2012 10:51 posted by Alan Wright

      To Shawn G and Anthony K's points:

      Recently, even the 700 Club's Pat Robertson has begun to refute the young-earth hypothesis, which is utter bunk. I always got a chuckle from the idea that God put fossils on earth to test humans. This is truly a bizarre conclusion.

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

      Science can demonstrate evolution as a 99% likely true theory, and some religious people will reject it nonetheless.

      The difference, I think is the Big Bang Theory because that moment of creation is theoretically compatible with the Old Testament doctrine. But, no Holy books I know even make mention of fossils or young earth, so religious people need not reject those theories.

      Most of the scientifically-wrong claims made by religious folks are not textual/ canonical. I.e., it was man-made Catholic doctrine from the Pope - not Abraham, Moses, and Jesus - which rejected Copernicus, Brahe, and heliocentric models of the solar system.

      As to Hitler and the Catholic Church: well, there's a reason Martin Luther stood up to the Catholic Church several hundred years ago. Their "sins" and religious warmaking are proofs of human fallibility, not disproofs of science or faith. Athiests like Stalin and Mao were just as effective with their violent state-religions (communism/ socialism) than religious leaders were decades before.

    • Comment Link Anthony K Tuesday, 04 December 2012 07:38 posted by Anthony K

      Whilst science may not completely falsify religious claims (or in this case the tenets of Christian dogma), it has certainly exposed it and embarrassed it.

      History is full of cases where religion and its authoritative institutions provided the uneducated masses with answers:

      Heliocentrism was accepted. Adam and Eve weren't allegories, metaphors, myths or the like, they were real, living beings who were the first humans created in the image of God. The Big Bang was not even considered, for the earth and the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago by the Creator, God.

      But of course any semi-intelligent man will tell you that every one of the previously immutable, infallible answers provided by God and his representative body(ies) on earth are now utterly false.

      Evolution, Big Bang, an expanding cosmos with the earth in some remote corner of an unimportant galaxy... science has truly shattered the infallibility and power of the Church.

      Of course, Apologists can find excuses and reasons such as stating that God 'set these processes into motion', directly contradicting these seemingly pointless metaphors of the OT, but who are they kidding? If I am not permitted to make the claim that "it is illogical to create a 14.7 billion year process of evolution etc." because I cannot come to understand the nature of God, then the theist too cannot come to assume the nature of God.

      I could go on about this, but i believe it to be disingenuous of theists to claim that every time something shattering is discovered it's 'God setting it into motion'.... then again, 'god did it' is the best excuse.

    • Comment Link Craig Manoukian Tuesday, 04 December 2012 00:14 posted by Craig Manoukian

      If we evolved from apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?

    Leave a comment

    Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.