For evolutionary theory a simple google scholar search yields an extensive library of research on evolution.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/7/5/1296/605886
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5407/1476
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1715338/pdf/ajhg00124-0223.pdf
http://nekhbet.com/king.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hcPSag2pn9IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evolution&ots=LTxgG4P07b&sig=fSJ6CZi_bvr5E0PxsKuJPnDzxHM#v=onepage&q=evolution&f=false

Some Homo Sapiens Related Stuff too:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1720
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867404011432
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237

And that's just scratching the surface. I could easily dredge up thousands and thousands of research articles like this. I encourage you to pick one and try to read through it carefully. Note how meticulous and careful the sort of work that is being presented in these papers.

Meanwhile, a google scholar search on creationism will yield hardly any formal literature. Some well written books that don't have a lot of research backing to them, but nevertheless, these are the sort of actual scientific articles you find:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2386841/
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/404
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-08766-011

These articles are not addressing creationism as a theory, but actually addressing the social science, the science of science and communication, aspect of how creationism maintains its strong hold.

You will find the same sort of theme in global warming vs. denialism
And the same thing with flat earth theorists.

A scientist is trained to be a skeptic on everything. Advanced degreed scientists, in their training, spend years working on research projects, only the be scrutinized, criticized, and questioned by their peers on every little nook and cranny on what they have done. Sometimes years of work get shot down by a single devastating question.

Considering this, it should be considered remarkable on how universal the consensus is in science accepting evolutionary theory.

Religion trains you to be faithful and believe, with very limited and vague hard ground truth. It is in fact a sort of challenge to believe, because it isn't obviously clear where its source is, persey. And that's fine.

You can see why I want to separate these two, as these sorts of views are inherently incompatible with one another.

As a scientist, your job is to put everything else aside and play the role of the skeptic. You doubt everything. You criticize everything. You look at the evidence in front of you and you look at it objectively. And not ad hoc willy willy either. Most definitely NOT with what the bible says as an initial "firewall". You look at peer reviewed articles. You look at professionally and meticulously done work with very specific objectives. With the knowledge from the statistical analyses and physical interpretations you obtain from your studies, and after much scrutiny, you then build your ideas from robust analysis which know how to utilize them, and reject the ones that don't.

If you truly want to be a scientist, this is something you will have to come to terms to. I know that it can be really difficult to "doubt" the bible, so to speak, but you HAVE to understand that you cannot be a true scientist unless you are willing to throw away everything you know and accept something different as "truth".

Until you can realize and come to terms with this, it is my duty to reject you as a scientist.

A few more thoughts:

My religious peers can justify evolutionary theory. This is some of their reconciliating thoughts that they have:

Have you considered that the early bible and the miracles of Jesus are meant to be taken allegorically and not literally? Perhaps then, instead of creationism, we should consider that god brought us into existence via his very genetic changes He envisioned?

What is a "year" to god?

The bible you read is at least twice, if not thrice, translated from its original language. Most words between languages are far from being able to match conotatively. There is no such "perfect translation" of the bible, and the true contations of it have probably been lost for centuries.

The books of the bible may have been given by God to the prophets, but they were written by humans. Humans are flawed creatures (even prophets), who may not have fully understood God's word.

Some of my peers are willing to separate their spirituality from the science (which is probably the best solution here), and therefore scientific evolution and spiritual creationism can coexist.

Another note:

Religions themselves debate amongst themselves who is the true religion. Is it Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Baha'i Faith (btw I think baha'i is a really cool concept)? Therefore, just accepting one of these to be irrevocably true and inexplictly intertwined with every aspect of life is just simply inappropriate. By doing so you really don't give any of these other religions any acknowledgement. However, if you are willing to split your frames of reference you can find space to accept and respect all of them.

Edited 2/5/2020 23:43:02

a scientist would never understand faith...


or hope

Edited 2/5/2020 23:50:23

Tacky- that is not true either- my entire argument here has been to completely separate religion and science and think of them in different "frames": a spiritual one, and a physical one.

what i mean is science is hardly the answer to everything, and sometimes you need faith and hope more than science. especially in difficult situations. imagine being Anne Frank.... it can be comforting to believe that there is something after this world and that feeling is very important to many people happiness

whether or not god is real, feelings are, and it is what makes us human...

Edited 2/6/2020 00:44:44

I am sorry, guys, but there is no way I can keep responding to you all in the size and thoroughness that I think is required in a debate like this. I'd love to, but it takes me way too much time (I am already spending more time than I would like to on WZ). It's not that you've asked unanswerable questions; they're no harder than some of the other tricky ones you've ready posted and that I've done my best to reply to. However, to answer them (especially yours, Aura) requires me to write a freaking essay, and I just don't have the time. Especially hard because it's mostly 2v1. 😉 So, although I'd love to keep debating , I think I'm going to have to stop the really detailed responses.
Also, Aura, I hate to say it, but whether you reject me or not, I'm going to be a scientist. 😉

@LND, no. not 2v1.

2v2

That's fine. I've essentially finished what I have to say.

Unfortunately, you face an uphill battle. The reasons for rejection isn't even a personal belief. It's just a matter of fact in science. I'm fine with you being a skeptic on evolution. I'm not fine with the decided lack of it on creationism. It's a scientist's duty to be a skeptic, period the end.

If you are going to a school with any reputation, you are going to have to confront this conflict of interest. And sooner rather than later. You will have a very hard time claiming yourself to be a scientist otherwise.

No, this is no 2v2 argument. This is much bigger than that.

Edited 2/6/2020 13:35:28

given the anthropic principle..... from wiki sense im lazy"The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] " so given that you can think about it being unlikely that all of these things happened in evolution, then the likeylihood is not infinitely small, its actually 1.

also
"I could just as easily ask you for evidence that God doesn't exist, and you would be just as (supposedly) unable as me to find any."

to prove a negative is not the same as to prove a positive. exsampel..... prove to me that the spagetti monster(that all of those new atheists are talkiing about) is not real. its not possible.

just on an ending note..... there is much more eveidence for julius ceasers exsistence then of jesus crists.... they even made coins whit his portrait.... you know on those things you pay whit in the hole empire

Edited 2/6/2020 14:18:19

where is the evidence he does not exist

where is the evidence he does not exist

No scientific evidence of God's existence has been found. And the evidence allegedly proving the existence of god is insufficient, therefore we assume that that this hypothetical god doesn't exist.

And if you think that atiests are here to deny every evidence for god then you are very very wrong, I myself am very much open minded and I really wish that a god exists...but the evidence aren't convincing enough. For e.g. which one do you prefer to believe in, bible/quran narrating 'creation of adam and eve' or scientifically proved 'evolution'?

hy·poth·e·sis
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

ie, you need evidence to debunk a hypothesis. if you do not have substantial evidence, it is wrong to say it is false.

@Tac(ky)tical
honey do you know that hypothetical also means: imagined, made up and unreal?

doesn’t mean what i said is wrong. there are aliens in outer space, because there are other planets with evidence of water. who are you to say there aren’t any unless you have evidence...

IMO

ganymedes-

I will once again reiterate: Science should NOT be used to prove or disprove any religion. Science acts independently of religion and neither should be mixed with the other.

And I already laid out thoroughly in this thread why I see it as okay for spiritual creationism and scientific evolution to coexist.. science and religion should not be used to mutually exclude the other. Doing so damages the integrity of the other.

Edited 2/6/2020 20:11:00

if there was a god why would he abide the law of physics anyway ;)

@Aura, make that a 5 billion vs 2 million arguement

You really should not be blanketing all believers in God into one bracket. I ensure you that many dedicated christians have made room for evolution in their beliefs.

We also must remember that many of these people who identify as "Christian" or "Muslim" are only so on a secular level, and are not necessarily committed to their beliefs.

https://ncse.ngo/polling-creationism-and-evolution-around-world

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.full

Edited 2/6/2020 22:59:42

I wonder how many Christians, Muslims, and Jews secretly believe there is no God, and how many Atheists secretly believe there is a God.

Okay, I've changed my mind; ill just reply to a couple of the arguments instead of all of them. 😉
@gany if you believe that the theory of evolution is "proved" then I am going to completely disregard your argument, because as Aura and I have already said, in science you can't "prove" anything. Just because it is the mostly widely held view doesn't mean it's right.
Also, it's not a matter of who has what evidence, it's how people interpret that evidence. As much as Aura likes to say science is objective, it's not, because where people are involved there can never be true objectivity (except maybe in maths. 😉)
@Aura, how do you know how much I am (or am not) skeptical of creation? Though when I was younger I certainly just swallowed it as fact, now there are certain things I do question about it, which is why I haven't brought any of them up, because I am not entirely sure of my own stance on it.

And I agree with Aura about grouping Christians together, not a good idea. Though I will argue that evolution and the Bible are contradictory, and in my opinion it is quite useless to try be a theistic evolutionists; leading atheists have even pointed this out. (I can't remember exactly who, I read it somewhere, I'll try find an example)