To initiate a serious Evolution vs Creationism debate, what should be the rules?

Question

NOTE: This is a serious question. This question is not meant to offend or ridicule anyone regardless of your belief.

To set up a serious EvC debate, for real not for joking, what should be the rules, i.e. common ground that theist and atheist must both agree on?

These are my thoughts but I want your input!

1. Both debaters should be well aware of the other side's opinions (the evolutionist should've read the bible, the theist should've learned what evolution really is)

2. The goal is to CONVINCE the other side, not to CONVERT

3. Both sides must accept the possibility that the belief of the other side is "The Truth"

4. No personal experience can be used for evidence

5. Phrases like "How can you just not..." are not allowed

6. All terms must be defined, and such definitions must be consistent through the debate

7. All documents, including the Bible, scientific papers, media articles, must be presented as "historical evidence" but not as "texts carrying spiritual meaning"

Answer 1

No this can't work.

Evolution is science. It requires objective verifiable, and falsifiable evidence.

Creationism is theology. It doesnot have, nor does it require evidence. The main doctrine for belief is simply faith.

The two are mutually exclusive and do not share a common ground for debate.


You can not use "because the bible says this" as evidence against evolution. Similarly it doesn't matter what physical evidence exists to disprove creationism because evidence is not relevant for faith.

Answer 2

Polar Bear,

Your question is outstanding and fascinating and I'm disappointed that no one else is giving you your due credit. I think the reason that evolution/creation debates never go anywhere is that no one sticks to rules like this. I think that rules 1, 6 and 7 that you have outlined are particularly important. (I know you may not be interested in personal opinions, but in my experience, about 99% of creationist arguments rely on IGNORING your rules 1, 6, and 7, so imposing these rules would almost completely invalidate their existing arguments: they would have to come up with an entirely new gameplan).

Number 6 is particularly important, because so many people seem to have complete misconceptions about the meanings of terms like "science", "religion", "theory", and "evidence". Many debates I have seen spin in circles because both sides agree that evolution is a "theory", but a creationist's definition of "theory" indicates that this is BAD, while a scientist's definition of theory indicates that this is GOOD.

In addition, I would propose an adaptation of an idea that has already been mentioned as a criterion for winning the debate:

8. A winning position must a) demonstrate reasonable doubt in the evidence and arguments of the opposing viewpoint, AND b) put forth independent evidence that favors your own viewpoint.

In other words, it is not enough to have an argument that favors your side if there are many arguments favoring the other side that you have NOT addressed. By the same token, it is not enough to try and discredit and falsify evidence of the opposing side, you must also provide positive evidence that YOUR idea is true. Eliminating one viewpoint as a possibility does not automatically imply that your viewpoint must be correct.

Answer 3

1. If creationists did this honestly, they would have to stop misrepresenting the science and misquoting scientists. The first few chapters of Genesis would be a quick 15 minute read. The evolution study could take weeks or longer.

2. ? ? ? ? ?

3. Not possible, unless you convert.

4. That takes most creationist evidence off the table

5. OK

6. a challenge for creationists. What Biblical terms exactly must be defined?

7. creationists won't show up if you require this.

CONCLUSION: Creationists cannot make their case if obligated to follow these rules. They believe they have the Word of God, and that they're at (spiritual) war with the world, so why conform to it? I cannot honestly imagine an honest with that crowd.

.

Answer 4

In reality there is no debate, and presenting a bible as historical evidence, when there is no evidence of it being historical, is unscientific.
Creationists are out to confirm their beliefs, Scientists only want to know the truth (and continue questioning it for all eternity just in case they were wrong).
What about this term: 8: all data must be of scientific value, and not anecdotal or faith-based. That would end the debate.

Answer 5

Well, I do not think that you could have a EvC debate with those rules. How could someone present a case for Christianity using those rules? There is not any evidence other than the Bible so they would have a really weak case. If you want to have a logical debate, Christians would not stand a chance.

Answer 6

Err...the Bible isn't a scientific document and isn't evidence of anything other than that was what some goat herders thought in the Bronze Age. Science already did have a serious debate about it using the evidence that was available. That debate was settled about 100 years ago.

Unless there is something major found that rises to the level that it can pass peer review, there is no debate.

Answer 7

D*** near impossible i'd say... for instance.. how do you choose the moderator? Would it be run like a political debate? Or a critics or professors round table type of deal? And would it be televised? or sent out in book form? Or blog form? You would want to reach as many people as possible and would it be a closed debate? or could other faiths join in? I'm Wiccan and follow a creation based polytheistic line..but you'd be surprised how many pagans/witches/wiccans have a evolution type of lean.

Hey! who ate all the beer nuts? these things are $2.99 a pack.... :|

yours aye. The Bartender.

Answer 8

The problem is that Evolution is still in the faith stage it has not been proven a fact yet. Since science is based on fact then till we can prove that Evolution is a real working order then we just chuck it up to a fade of our time. To many dead spaces in the time line. But when they do figure it out and Evolution comes about they might also find out that God had a hand in it. There is no reason if your God to not make stuff in per-existence. Think about stars and there light it takes millions of years to hit our plant. So God when he made light, Made it already at the point were we see it and then filled in the dots all the way back. If God wanted to make a car its there in a blink. But if you took that car apart you can see that the metal come from the ground and the glass and everything else from just dirt. The atom's would be atom's etc... The atoms would be millions of years old but God just made it in a blink. He is God by the way and can do anything.

Answer 9

As far as the pro-evolution side, I would suggest someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Maximo Pigliucci comes to mind since he's done this about a million times.
Since the anti-evolution side relies on crackpots who taught grade school science and know very little about either the scientific method or evolution, ie. Ken Hovind, it doesn't matter who you put up there. They'll live in their fantasy world regardless.
As for the rest fo your rules I think they are adequate.
I believe there are already pre-packed debate rules.
http://www.infidelguy.com/ has plenty of these. (Also available as a podcast. Free plug for Reggie.)

Answer 10

There wouldn't be any rules anyway as the Chistians would
make their own as always,so wheres the debate?
Look we all know that we were "Evolved" through history
whether it be of some alien system or a tiny life form,that eventually turned into an animal and that animal "evolved"
into the Ape or Ape like human,and from then on it went
through other stages of "Evolution" to get to us,now we are
the one's who will " Evolve" into "WHAT" ?
All of these types of Questions only leave me with one conclusion and that being\ SAME CRAP ? JUST A DIFFERENT BUCKET !