Darwin Day Debate

[salutethehill]

There will be a debate at 7 (yes, as in 1 hour) at USC in Columbia. You can view it live here
Justin.tv - Darwin Day Debate: nonprofit bible darwin debate
Here's the details:

I Know That The God of the Bible Does Not Exist

Affirm: Dan Barker
Co-president, Freedom from Religion Foundation
Former charismatic preacher turned atheist
Frequent Debater
Author of Losing Faith in Faith and Godless

Deny: Kyle Butt
Apologetics Press
Gospel preacher, author, lecturer
M.A. (Freed Hardeman University)
Editor of Discovery, Associate Editor of Reason & Revelation
Author of Out With Doubt and Behold The Word of God
Author of Surveying the Evidence

I figured some of you might be interested in this. Sorry I didn't get it on here sooner. :hi:

 

[MG1968]

Darwin and religion agree on homosexuality, I wonder if that subject will come up, or if the atheists stick to their usual arguments?

 

[rjd970]

Darwin and religion agree on homosexuality, I wonder if that subject will come up, or if the atheists stick to their usual arguments?

Where does Darwin's theory state it is a "sin" punishable by an almighty God?

 

[MG1968]

Where does Darwin's theory state it is a "sin" punishable by an almighty God?

nice deflection.

Darwin's theory holds that homosexuality holds no value in the animal kingdom since it's primary purpose is not to propagate a species.

I think that's putting it kindly.

 

[rjd970]

Darwin's theory holds that homosexuality holds no value in the animal kingdom since it's primary purpose is not to propagate a species.

Religion uses that same justification?

They agree that it is "bad". But that is about it.

 

[MG1968]

Religion uses that same justification?

They agree that it is "bad". But that is about it.

are you being daft on purpose?

 

[rjd970]

are you being daft on purpose?

Never.

 

[IPorange]

nice deflection.

Darwin's theory holds that homosexuality holds no value in the animal kingdom since it's primary purpose is not to propagate a species.

I think that's putting it kindly.

There are some theories from anthropologists that do show homosexuality can be a net benefit for a socially organized population. Also, you are assuming all evolutionarily useless traits (those with "no value") are ultimately bred out and discarded. This is certainly not so. There is an element of chance and randomness to some traits being passed on or not. What has male pattern baldness done for anyone lately?

 

[MG1968]

baldness doesn't inhibit a species' ability to procreate.

 

[IPorange]

baldness doesn't inhibit a species' ability to procreate.

Some women might disagree.

homosexuality doesn't inhibit a species' ability to procreate, but rather an individual's. That individual will now devote resources not to their own offspring, but to the community's and most likely to their siblings' children, thus overall increasing the chances of their gene pool being successful, as opposed to a group of humans that all had their own kids and thus more thinly stretched resources. Granted, it isn't an airtight argument, but it has merit.

I was just tossing that in the ring. As for the original subject, I think those kind of "Science vs. Religion" debates are divisive and do only harm to both camps. Both points of view have a logic. There is no reason to put them into a cage match with one another.