I know of people who tried to post challenges to evolution at the skeptics Stack Exchange site, and the questions were closed.

What Stack Exchange site, if any, is the right one to post questions that challenge evolution, and the theory of the universe being older than 5781 years, etc.?

  • 3
    It sounds more of a religious interpretation sort of question than anything which would fit on other sites. Try Biblical Hermeneutics for starters. Whilst you're at it, why not use the "contact" link at the bottom of any page to amalgamate this and your other (at least two) accounts.
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:10
  • 16
    Skeptics has clear rules for how to ask questions there (well, all the SE sites do if you bother to look, but Skeptics has a particularly unique way of approaching things, and they are quite clear about it): skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic I doubt your questions/those of people you know were closed because evolution is not an allowable topic there, they were closed because they didn't follow the rules of Skeptics.SE. Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:17
  • @a hi I'm not sure which accounts you are referring to Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:34
  • Well, maybe they weren't yours, and you were just an observer to the questions (on a site where this account shows no membership), in which case, please ignore that part of the comment. You'll need to use the @name format to ping someone to whom your comment replies.
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:37
  • 2
    Evolution of what? The evolution of a respiratory virus over the course of one year? The evolution of planets, stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters over billions of years? The evolution from wolves to many different kinds of dogs over the course of 10,000 years by selective breeding? Commented May 29, 2021 at 17:29
  • @P.Mort.-forgotClayShirky_q OP here is most likely talking about evolution in general, challenging the whole theory on religious basis. (aka believes the universe/world were Created by God 5781 years ago, etc.) Commented May 30, 2021 at 11:44
  • 1
    @P.Mort.-forgotClayShirky_q you should avoid facts when dealing with faith - it's a waste of effort:) Commented May 31, 2021 at 9:43
  • @p.mort everything after the virus thing, stars or wolves never evolved etc, they're just created that way (one day you'll know) Commented May 31, 2021 at 11:36
  • @LawmpLaweetir it seems you only came here to argue your beliefs, thats really not the purpose of SE.
    – Topcode
    Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 3:40
  • @topcode I don't exactly recall arguing, merely clarifying. Would you prefer that I didn't clarify, thus leaving it to be ambiguous? Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 4:15
  • 1
    It seems like you are drifting away from the actual asked question, which isnt discussing your beliefs, rather where to ask a question. and when asked about what aspect of the theory of evolution you were questioning (to better identify a correct site), you said "all of that isnt real" which doesnt really answer what the person was asking you.
    – Topcode
    Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 4:21
  • @topcode so what would you do, it does answer the question because it specifies what is real and what is not. Would u prefer I didn't specify, thus leaving the other guy waiting in anticipation for my response, forever!? Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 20:53
  • the question wasnt asking "whats real and whats not" it was asking which part in specific you were challenging. nevertheless, your answer could be interpreted as "all of it", in which i (not very much) regret to inform you, that it cannot be posted anywhere on stack exchange.
    – Topcode
    Commented Jun 2, 2021 at 1:25

2 Answers 2


There isn't really an SE site for challenging a theory, per se. If you want to publish some content stating counterarguments to evolution, SE isn't a good place to do that.

The point of SE's Q&A format is that people ask questions that other people might later also have, and people leave answers that will help other people in the future. Unlike most forums, it's not a quick "I ask a question and get an answer, and we all forget about it" - we want to build a permanent repository of information for the internet forever (or however long, anyway).

Thus, if there is a legitimate question, you might be able to find a site. Just "challenging evolution" doesn't really fit into a question so I can't think of any site right now that this would belong to.

Note that you can actually post a fact - when you are asking a question, you have the option to answer it yourself and post both at the same time. In fact, this perfectly demonstrates how SE differs - on a normal forum site, why would you answer yourself? If you already know the answer, why would you ask? But on SE, if you have an answer to a problem you think others might have, that isn't already asked, you are more than welcome to ask that question yourself and provide your answer such that people in the future who come across it can be helped too.

Do keep in mind that you must respect the site's scope, on-topic definition, and question/answer quality control. I would recommend checking a site's tour and help center before you post there, if you find a site that would be suitable.

Anyway, if you format this into a proper question (and/or answer), it may be easier to identify an appropriate target site to post that, but from this information alone, it doesn't seem within the scope of SE as a whole.

  • How about "is there any solid evidence of the universe being older than 5781 years, if it was created ready to go" and the answer being "no"? Where would that question and answer fit Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:34
  • 7
    @LawmpLaweetir Whilst you're perfectly at liberty to answer your own questions, the fact you've decided the answer before asking in this case seems to show bad faith in an evidenced approach: thus Biblical Hermeneutics may be your best bet as it's about scripture interpretation not evidence, per se.
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:41
  • 12
    Asking and answering a question like this, even if your answer is more detailed than simply "no" would likely be interpreted as using one of our sites as a soapbox and the question would likely be downvoted, closed and deleted, @LawmpLaweetir
    – Catija
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 22:50
  • 2
    @ARogueAnt. I don't know if it's your intent or not, but I think your comments could be interpreted as being dismissive or pejorative towards that particular SE site, since it doesn't seem like OP is actually interested in scripture interpretation but rather some version of science denial and religious soapboxing. I think BH makes strong efforts to avoid that sort of content. Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:07
  • 2
    @BryanKrause It wasn't intended as such, just that the Skeptics site and other science ones have standards of evidence which preclude the "I'm making an anti-evidence-based assertion, prove me wrong" post which I've observed a number of times. I demean the religious sites not, but they have a different approach which might suit the OP better than the disappointment of the alternative. I'll reiew my approach to commenting on religion and soapboxing attempts, for the sake of harmony.
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:14
  • 1
    @ARogueAnt. Sure, but...so does BH. Their source of evidence is different (interpretation of biblical text according to some standard methods used to do so, rather than empirical study), but "I'm making an assertion, prove me right/wrong" isn't allowed there either. Perhaps "I am asserting that this passage of text means X" is closer to acceptable, but I don't think that's where OP here is heading. That's why I thought your comment seemed potentially offensive to BH. I disagree with many of the folks there on what a useful way to find meaning in the world is, but their site isn't for junk. Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:19
  • I'm only familiar with the site from the descriptor in their tour, not from hanging there. I have to say, many mods across the network have proven their thoughts about Worldbuilding as being a dumping ground for unwanted questions which might vaguely fit our brief, they usually don't. That's the subject for another meta post about mod training though. @BryanKrause
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:23
  • @ARogueAnt. I know, I had Worldbuilding in mind as well when deciding to comment about yours. I've made mistakes of sending things there when I probably shouldn't have, and have taken on cautioning others against suggesting sending stuff there as well as I've become more familiar with standards there. If you don't like it happening to Worldbuilding, I'd suggest avoiding it for other sites where you don't know the standards. Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:26
  • I have no power to migrate, only to recommend that people check-out a site to think about posting there. I've no designs on mod-hood, but I appreciate your thought about WB, the poor cousin to the science sites. @BryanKrause
    – W.O.
    Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:39
  • @arogueant thanks but I'm not interested in Bible verses, this question is assuming I already know what the Bible is saying, and is now asking back to the scientists. So if the above format would not be accepted anywhere, what specific type of format would be accepted, to portray the same idea, and where would you recommend presenting it? Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:55
  • @catija the above comment is for you also I didn't realize when I wrote it Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:56
  • @bryan hi, just to clarify there's no science "denial", since creation is a scientific, logical concept Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:57
  • 7
    @LawmpLaweetir It sounds like you plan to have a back-and-forth discussion/debate with science from a religious (or rather, anti-science) perspective. That's not in scope for SE. Again, it's a community project to build a repository of information, and back-and-forth clashing ideas or discussion don't contribute to that. Once you have enough reputation, you might find someone willing to discuss this with you in chat, but otherwise, I'm not sure you'll find much success on SE if your idea isn't to ask a genuine question but just to state or promote an ideology or opinion. Commented May 28, 2021 at 23:57
  • 13
    @LawmpLaweetir 5781 is not a number you'll find in scientific texts that aren't directly attributable to scriptural interpretations. This is most profoundly anti-science in it's approach, especially your characterization of science neglecting to mention "unbiased observation" and evidence gathering - if you start with the conclusion that your looking to prove, then you fall prey to confirmation bias. Undo your confirmation bias and then you'll be able to post on the network, until then you may well not find a site which welcomes your approach. I'm out.
    – W.O.
    Commented May 29, 2021 at 0:09
  • 1
    @PM2Ring, see also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… - and under the ideas proposed by your links why wouldn't we have to actually follow the Commandments, go to church, feed the poor, (not argue against 5781), etc.
    – Rob
    Commented May 29, 2021 at 8:32

There are at least 65 questions about evolution on Skeptics that are not closed, so it is possible to ask them on Skeptics. But that is different from "challenging evolution", you choice of words indicate that you already decided on the truth and nothing will change your mind. If you tried to ask on Skeptics it would almost certainly not end well. Biology is the other site where evolution is on-topic, but for pretty much the same reason "challenging evolution" also wouldn't work there. I've been a moderator on both sites, and I'm quite certain that asking on either site would not work for you.

Both sites only accept scientific arguments, not religious ones. For this reason you really wouldn't like the answers you'd get there, even if you manage to ask a question that doesn't get closed. The typical arguments we get from people "challenging evolution" are pretty well known to the kind of people that might answer such a question, we've heard them over and over again. There's a limited number of arguments against evolution that circulate, and we've debunked every single one of them. It does get tiring to do that over and over again, which is the main reason these kinds of questions are mostly closed and receive strongly negative reactions.

If you ask on the religious sites, you will only get religious arguments about what people believe and what doctrines exist about the topic. You will not get scientific arguments as that is not what these sites are about.

There is really no place for this kind of question in the SE network.

  • How is it possible to"debunk" that the Creation made everything ready to go 5781 years ago, like we've been saying for thousands of years, with hundreds of thousands of in depth books written in the subject, and accepted by modern day PHDs? What is the counter argument? Commented May 31, 2021 at 11:40
  • 1
    @LawmpLaweetir you ready know what issues there are with young-earth creationists, (and there are many). You are trying to set up your relgious soapbox on meta and it won't wash any better than the ridiculously contrived explanations for observable evidence thrown out by creatio....intelligent design proponents. Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 2:59
  • @martin can you please name one ,? Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 20:59
  • 1
    @LawmpLaweetir i will. The theory of creationism cant be disproved, meaning it is meaningless in any scientific discussion (of which you claim to want) you know very well that it is impossible to disprove, because you will no doubt say "well god just made it look like the universe was older" which in all honesty, is a terrible argument in all aspects.
    – Topcode
    Commented Jun 2, 2021 at 1:33
  • 1
    @Topcode the OP is tending towards troll behaviour in trying, as you say, to set up a faith discussion on SE meta. There is no point in engaging with young-earth creationists, flat-earthers or space-deniers, (unless you do so for amusement purposes, and even then, not on meta:). Commented Jun 2, 2021 at 6:11
  • @martin not sure what creation has to do with Faith? Also not sure when I mentioned any flat earths? It would seem you have many preconceived notions Commented Jun 10, 2021 at 8:24
  • @topcode by that logic nothing can be disproved Commented Jun 10, 2021 at 8:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .