In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.

[ Frequently Asked Questions > What Is the Written Debate Offer? > Written Debate Offer ]

Written Debate Offer

The purpose of this debate is:

a. To provide a vehicle for a dispassionate and comprehensive exchange of scientific data on both sides of a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred for the past 150 years.

b. To make available to interested readers a clear explanation (in English) of the major scientific evidence on both sides of the creation-evolution issue. Alternate interpretations and counterevidence will be contrasted. The disciplines will include the life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, and physical sciences (physics and chemistry).

The debate question is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Each side will present the evidence it feels supports its view of origins and refutes the opposing explanation. Each side will summarize its position in 100 words or less and submit it with this signed paper. (Possible examples are given below.)

a. The Creation Position:

Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the complexity we see today.

Genetic variations are limited.

The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.

b. The Evolution Position:

Over billions of years, the universe, the solar system, the earth, and finally life developed from disordered matter through natural processes.

All life has a common, single-celled ancestor.

Random mutations and natural selection produced today’s many forms of life.

The debate will consist only of scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed. The editor will strike such ideas from the record. The “no religion” rule would be violated by

a. referring to religious writings, such as the Bible or the Qur’an,

b. ridiculing a deity or religious belief, or

c. using a religious writing to support a scientific claim. However, using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion that happens to correspond to a religious writing would not be a violation.

The credibility of creation and the flood, as a scientific matter, should rise or fall based on evidence, not the religious beliefs of either side of this debate. If the debaters scrupulously avoid religion, the debate’s content can be used in the public schools. Each side will define its terms, organize its evidence, and submit its arguments in whatever way will add clarity to its case.