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?
Director, Origins Project and Foundation Professor, ASU
Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and author
Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT
Author, What's So Great About Christianity
Author & Correspondent for ABC News
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
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
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
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,
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
A response to nelsen_temple:
They are not debating evolution, they are debating the existence of a supernatural being, "God."
The Atheist isn't obligated to "prove what they believe." In this case, it is something they DO NOT BELIEVE. It is up to the Theist(s) to provide the evidence and rationale for the act of believing.
Furthermore, no atheist I have ever heard debate or ever read, and certainly not Dr. Kruass, has EVER stated that "evolution created everything" or that "everything came from evolution." Evolution is a biological process, and explains biology perfectly well. So well, infact, biology doesn't make sense with out it. If you don't believe in evolution you are on the hook to explain why Whales have pelvis' and there are legless lizards and snakes with legs! You have to explain why dinosaurs had feathers and birds have left over DNA for creating TEETH. Lots of explaining to do on your part.
Add also, that evolution isn't an explanation for the CREATION of life, but the PROCESS of change once life got started. The start from non-life to life is called ABIOGENESIS, which is a completely different process that has nothing to do with evolution or the origin of the universe. All three: Evolution, Abiogenesis, the "Big Bang" are separate explanations for separate processes that have nothing to do with each other---other than they don't rely on the magical man in the the sky and they have vast amounts of supporting evidence--none of which is contradicted.
Intellectuals will continue to debate, as they always have, evolution. They don’t believe in God or believe there is a God so they will do all in their ability to prove what they believe is real. Those who believe in evolution will insist that evolution created the universe and all therein. Christians, and most other religions, will continue to believe it all came from God. I think most everyone believes in change, and if change is evolution then we all can believe in evolution, but evolution cannot create. When science can create a life form in a test tube, then they can win the debate. Of course it will take a test tube, a lab and a scientist and these things were not there in the beginning. So what did it evolve from?
The proposition is simply true or false based on the definition of God. What was really debated was the definition of God.
If, as the opposing team almost, but not quite, pointed out, your definition of God is a Holy God - that is, a creator of the Universe who is not part of the Universe (yet is free to act inside the Universe He created, or not), then the proposition is preposterous. Science can only refute assertions about the Universe. Such a God is outside the Universe.
If God is defined as the supporting team defines God, some really big and powerful being within the Universe, who lives someplace we can't see, who has power to manipulate the Universe in supernatural ways, who "created" the Universe by scooping up a handful of Universe stuff from his back yard and forming it into our Universe, then the proposition is again unarguable. Clearly science refutes such a God.
Science clearly refutes a God who is part of the universe.
Science clearly cannot refute a God who is not part of the Universe.
Mr. D'Souza was quite right in pointing out that athiests like to knock down fundamentalist theology and worldly Gods such as Neptune. Yes, science clearly refutes all forms of fundamentalism, and the God Neptune, because both Neptune and fundamentalism are worldly, not holy, concepts. Science has nothing to say about the holy, by definition.
I'm quite surprised no one asked for the scientific explanation of observable and reproducible placebo effect.
There is only energy (matter) in our universe; and at places where there is more energy than in the near environment, it will try to equalize itself, 'spread out'.
There are a few 'Universal Laws'; one of them is the fact that energy has to equalize itself (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Our universe is expanding at this moment, and thus energy has to fill up that bigger space (or as old-school taught 'tendency for disorder or entropy increase'); that's why many things around us disintegrates, tectonic plates drifting apart, planets moving further apart (in general).
However, this 'overall tendency for disorder or entropy increase' is just a result of energy's reaction on the (maybe temporarily-) expanding universe and is not a Universal Law.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics can sometimes result in 'order to increase; entropy to decrease'.
For example: a river flowing down from a mountain can have a rock sticking out the water; behind that rock the water might flow upstream... but the overall trend is still that water flows down the mountain.
Along the same lines, The Second Law of Thermodynamics can permit order to arise; but the over-all trend is disorder.
Life forms; they display disorder PLUS order... but life still has to cope with the expanding universe and thus the 'overall tendency for disorder or entropy increase' stays in effect.
Life forms display disorder PLUS order; all energy in our universe is part of one- or more cyclic systems. Each 'living thing' on earth is likewise a cyclic system.
Life behaves like 'running around in circles'; you become tired but you're not getting anywhere! Yes, that includes human beings, our purpose in this world kinda sucks.
For example: a tree is a 'cyclic system'.
The trunk, roots and leaves are formed which is an increase in order.
Evaporation of water while the sun shines on the leaves is dissipating energy; and just like a rotting tree gives an increase in disorder.
Does this mean it all leads nowhere? No.
Lo and behold; the scorching sunlight plus the scattered around water, soil nutrients and minerals are now gracefully circling around in what we call a 'forest' and all that energy (matter) is more equally spreaded out than before.
Thanks to The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Approximately 3.9 billion years ago, around our Earth's equator there was much unequally divided energy/matter. Sunlight, water, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen; all scattered around.
Obviously, at that point in time and at that region, the 'activation energy' was reached for 'life' to begin.
It took around 1.8 billion years for the first cells to form, and another 1.4 billion years before some simple animals appeared.
This 'Wonder of Life' and our universe having a 'flawless design' is actually nothing more than many, many particles (energy /matter) following some simple laws and repeating those over a very long, long time.
Denying this can lead to fruitless debate about divine intervention.
Oh by the way; Probably the Big Bang never took place and neither will we ever reach the 'cosmic heat death'; our universe will contract after reaching an 'activation energy', then expand again etc.
Why? Because it's all about 'cyclic systems' and nothing in our universe ever reaches extremes; not the speed of light, not a temperature of zero Kelvin.
Movement never stops. Energy can not be destroyed.
While a fantastic idea, this debate was a monumental failure in that it turned out to be not a debate of Science refuting God, but rather of Science refuting Christianity. Both opposition members are professed Christians, and both were there to defend the Christian ideal, while both proponents were given the task of attacking a set of 3,000 year old traditions and dogma which has become increasingly simple thanks to our advanced knowledge of life and the Universe. Agnostic theists like me are simply not moved by the arguments of Krauss & Shermer. Although I agree with them on most points, and I admit that Krauss is pretty funny, his arguments still end far from explaining the creation of the Universe or the creation of the first life. At present, Science has no answer for these two questions, and it is completely rational for me to think that there is or can be a transcendent being/reality, such as the absolute, which is beyond the realm of human comprehension. Until molecular biologists can create life in a lab, or new, more advanced telescopes can witness the instant of the beginning of the Universe, I will have to accept that there is something else, beyond our understanding, which has a stake in all of this…
Science has refuted the catholic church but has proven there is a God over and over. In Gen 1 Moses, not at all a scientist, describes how the universe evolved under the direction of an eternal being. Read it, everything fits. First the universe...stars....earth...plant life...animals...then humans. If you are stuck because it refers to it being one "day" at a time...tell me how you refer to time next time you create life.
Easiest thing in the world to prove that there is God. God is the Absolute Supreme Controller. In this manifest creation that we are experiencing, Time is the Supreme Controller of all animate and inanimate entities. Absolutely nothing is independent of the influence of time. Absolutely everything is subject to Time. Time is God. Q.E.D.
You should have had Stephen Barr Against. Dinesh D'Souza? Really?
Obviously science refutes god. All arguments for god are nothing but words. The crux of the argument is exactly the idea of imagined intention. Dinesh says that science can explain how the universe is but not "why" the universe is. This notion that there must have been considered intention in the design of the universe is clearly the result of humans being used to designing things and nothing more. It's like a male seahorse looking at a human baby and assuming that its father just gave birth to it, because male seahorses are used to giving birth. This way of looking at the universe reveals itself to be baseless when you think in the other direction. Consider, for instance, a lesser being, like a seahorse, thinking any thing at all. Just because we think about whether or not we're ready to be parents, does that mean seahorses do, too? Obviously not. The fact that we make things does not at all imply that we were made.
I believe no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. The human mind created God and God made the ape human by giving it an awareness of its own existence. This is what was "created" and made an ape human. God is an awareness that we are human and that we live for each other. God, and our evolved beliefs, created this awareness in us. God has told us from above--the top of our heads--that we must have faith, hope, and love in and of what we believe; we believe in God. The question is: who or what may have made us aware of these beliefs. The same mind, through knowledge and progress, has not created anything since, but with knowledge has and is destroying humankind. The only thing humanly created is God and perhaps poetry, all else destroys humankind and the world it lives in. It is not the belief in God that causes wars; it is the religions humans have imposed on themselves to destroy the human mind-- God.
While Krauss and Shermer did an nice job of maintaining a substantive debate, despite D'Souza's propensity to dismiss rather than identify and solve (proving how poor of a scientist he is, not to mention his obvious lack of conviction to truth and his proclivity toward sensationalism, as so clearly shown in his documentary on Obama); I truly wish Krauss and Shermer would have nailed the ridiculously parochial subjective basis the theists made on so many topics, such as D'Souza's reference to the idea that morals evolve due to Smith's "impartial spectator," which is so flawed in suggesting we are "preprogrammed" with morals. He obviously never studies the effects the environment has on the lack of morals in feral children. D'Souza also really messed up suggesting science (and what I think should have been more accurately described as observation: as the former is not required to obtain the latter) cannot prove what happens after death. It is quite clear what "physically" happens to us , or any other animal for that manner; the flawed perception/belief is that we are unique (as a result of having a soul) and therefore must have further purpose, which is just egocentric. We are no better or worse than any other animal, tree or any other form of matter. Until man decides to embrace this notion and accept our ACTUAL reason for being (which is simply the same as any other animal: to live), we will be stuck wasting time on trying to enlighten others and fight to avoid being effected by others who espouse this egotistical notion that something MUST happen after death!
I can understand the frustration on the part of some of the commenters here. Of course science doesn't refute God. The God concept is infallible, refutation is impossible. What the atheist side should have made clear, and indeed what should have been the motion for the debate, was that science has shown there is no good reason to believe in God. That's a very different claim.
I find it telling that the debate topic was changed into "Defend Christianity" by those for the motion.
This occurred because the legends and beliefs of Christianity are easy to mock. It is easier to make someone who believes them sound foolish then to actually defend the premise that science refutes Gd.
This would be like a fish proclaiming to other fish that their investigations have refuted the existence of water. They can proclaim it all day but can only do so because of the sustenance of the very water they dismiss.
How foolish to Gd must these people seem as they proclaim loudly and pompously that since He hides himself from them behind a veil of nature He must not exist.
They seem to believe that if there were a Gd, He would be constantly be blinding us with the knowledge of His presence but does this make sense? If there is a Gd, and He has given us a purpose to achieve, an all encompassing knowledge of Gd would defeat the purpose of creation.
I sure would like to see the experiment that was used to "refute" the existence of God. Maybe I could replicate it here at home. You know, I've never seen a black hole. I'm told that you can feel its effects. But then again, I'm told that you can feel the effects of love.
I'd really like to see that god-o-meter!....
I look forward to the debate based on the question asked at approx. 1:31:00
"Why is god necessary?"
I think Lawrence Krauss presented his argument very well. The argument is for science and reason and rationality versus the God argument and the Christian religion. A belief in God, religion in general, and all superstitious behavior is common because it is a response to the 12 Unthinkable Horrors of Human Existence:
1) There Is No Afterlife
2) God Does Not Answer Prayers
3) Life Is Chance
4) Life Is Not Fair
5) There Is No Eternal Justice
6) God Is The Invention Of Man.
7) A Single Mistake Can Ruin Your Life
8) Man Is Not Special
9) There Is No Absolute Morality or Truth
10) Free Will Is a Myth
11) Experts Can Be Wrong
12) Romantic Love Is A Myth
Sciences supports them. Religion, faith and a belief in God refutes them because, for 85% of the population, it is more comforting to believe the myth than the reality.
I M Probulos
Neither side clearly understood what they were talking about and the audience certainly didn't either. Science can't possibly refute God. However, it can refute the existence of certain gods. Some power caused the universe and that power is God. What they needed to do in this debate was identify the god they were debating about. Both sides had concepts of God that are wrong so they were fighting and defending a "straw" man, or god.
I agree with you with regards to Deism, but Christianity, Islam etc. make assertions in their holy texts about the nature and history of the same universe that science aims to explain and explore.
As science grows and evolves and discovers more and more about the history and nature of our universe, assertions made in biblical texts are falsified or confirmed, and from that we can gain insight into whether or not these texts contain truth.
I can see where they are going with the science refutes god. As Andres rightly points out, its not that science refutes faith. Rather, as I understand this debate, it is that science refutes the scientific proofs of god.
There has been a slew of seemingly scientific arguments proposed as evidence for god. To me, they have all been flawed in one way or another, and the speakers in this debate explain why quite eloquently.
I can also recommend the two dan barker vs dinesh desouza debates, as well as sam harris vs dinesh desouza, for possibly more faith-baised content.
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.