Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[Red Economist]

I'm going to offer a few ideas and I hope they help.

i) accusing science of being corrupt

you haven't offered any proof of this. if you could, you've have to demonstrate that it is not just one person who is corrupt, but the whole profession which would be very difficult as it is. That would make a really entertaining conspiracy theory video on Youtube, but it's not going to be a good argument.

ii) attacking inconsistency in scientific theories

Science is not primarily measured by logical consistency (it definitely helps) but how far they correspond to the evidence. Logical consistency is very much based on an idea that our ideas perfectly reflects reality, and whilst this is helpful amongst people- it is again a requirement peculiar in that it is attributed to the omniscience of god.

iii) thinking that because scientists change their ideas it means they're ideas are wrong


For reasons I will explain, you are on more solid ground from winning a debate because this plays into popular misconceptions of the scientific method and debates on the philosophy of science, but it generally doesn't help your argument.

Scientists change their ideas to suit the evidence and are therefore not fixed in stone. Scientific knowledge is man-made and therefore constitutes a 'best guess' as to how things work. The idea that knowledge can be absolute and eternal is peculiar to religious beliefs rather than to scientific ones.

For example; Issac Newton developed the theory of Mechanics which explained the orbit of the planets according to mathematical laws. His theories were accepted even though they didn't explain the orbit of Mercury; Albert Einstein came along and then explained that this discrepancy in terms of the curvature of space-time in the theory of relativity. Einsteins theory did not falsify Newtonian Mechanics, but were a superior explanation as they could explain more. Newton's theory are still true, but have were superseded by Einstein.

However, in terms of the philosophy of science this is debatable if you include ideas about scientific theories being "unfalsifiable" (as this came from Karl Popper's attacks on History and Psychology as being considered 'scientific' disciplines). His ideas, whilst popular because they fit into our common sense understanding of 'true and false' are generally not applicable in the scientific method.


Using the ideas regarding the origin of life and the universe, you are on more solid ground for a convincing argument and these things are commonly employed in debates by theologians to make their case. You could build a really good essay by discussing these points but this is however a "god of the gaps" argument by saying that "what we don't know must be god". Saying that these things are inherently unknowable by the scientific method makes it harder to refute from a Scientific point of view, but it can still be challenged philosophically.

I think you may need to refine your argument a bit, as Science and Religion are not inherently opposed. The prevalence of atheism amongst scientists remains something historically very recent in the last two centuries. Many Scientists were religious and sought to use science to understand the mind of god. This god is not however the god of genesis, but is a god as the source or origin for the universe and it's laws.
What are inherently opposed are two schools of thought, idealism and materialism; idealism seeks to attribute the cause of ideas to the mind, consciousness and ideas and therefore seeks to find an ultimate explanation for existence in god, whereas materialism seeks to find explanations that originate from matter (or natural sources) which exist objectively and therefore is strongly disposed towards atheism. Science tends to favor the latter because in trying to find objectively true knowledge it seeks to find expalantions that can be replicated and so favours naturalistic explanations. science is a free inquiry and is not inherently hostile towards religious belief, but does for this reason have an atheist bias.