The Instigator
PotBelliedGeek
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Nulosaur
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Does Evolution negate Intelligent Design? Does Intelligent Design negate evolution?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Nulosaur
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,079 times Debate No: 40274
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

PotBelliedGeek

Con

In this debate I will argue that the ideas of Intelligent Design and Evolution are compatible and do not negate one another. In R1, I would like my opponent to illustrate that the ideas are not compatible and provide supporting evidence. I am open to debate supporters of both Evolution and Creationism. In R2, I will illustrate the compatibility of theses two ideas and provide supporting evidence.

I wish my opponent luck and I look forward to a fulfilling and intelligent debate.

In response to a question in the comments, by evolution I mean the scientific/biological concept. I am not referring to the evolution of a particular species.
Nulosaur

Pro

I would like to begin by stating that, although I am not opposed to every conceivable facet of intelligent design, I consider myself to be an atheist.

The notion that intelligent design (the concept that a deity or deities intentionally and willfully manufactured life) is compatible with evolution (the concept that life gradually adapted and altered itself in a deliberate effort to survive without the aid of a deity or deities) serves to only solidify the fallacious and nonsensical nature of abiogenesis. If God/gods did indeed generate the organisms which would serve as the foundations for much more complex and convoluted forms of life, then such an act does not constitute intelligent design, for the deity/deities in question did not influence the natural processes responsible for evolution and therefore could not have "designed" the products of these previously mentioned processes.

In short, the possibility for both intelligent design and evolution to have been factors in the development of life on earth is a fundamentally flawed proposition and thus incorrect. Intelligent origin is not, and never will be, identical to (or compatible with) intelligent design.
Debate Round No. 1
PotBelliedGeek

Con

My argument is as follows:

1. Evolution.
The Idea (fact) that organisms can genetically change from generation to generation, and that through this, natural selection causes species to adapt to their environment. Over enough time, it is possible for a species to compound these alterations to an extent that classifies them as a new species. Given enough time, it is feasible to say that all life originated from one, or few, mono cellular organisms.

2. Intelligent Design.
The Idea that at least one theistic deity intentionally created life, and designed living organisms as we are today.

I assert that these two ideas are entirely compatible, especially is viewed as evolution being the method through which the deity asserted his (forgive the engendering) design.

I leave it to my opponent to illustrate how these are incompatible. My opponent is free to debate my definitions as well.
Nulosaur

Pro

I apologize in advance, but the majority of this debate will fixate on the definitions of intelligent design and evolution.

In Round 2, my opponent stated that evolution was "the idea (fact) that organisms can genetically change from generation to generation, and that through this, natural selection causes species to adapt to their environment." This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is in a biological context. The following is a definition of evolution from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

biology: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

"Natural" is underlined to illuminate one of many major points within this debate. The very premise of evolution relies upon natural processes which are dependent upon non-intelligent selection. If God/gods were indeed influencing these alterations, inconsistencies in scientific observations that could not be dismissed with natural principles would emerge, and as these inconsistencies are non-existent, the two "theories" remain incompatible and radically different in their various postulates.

I imagine that my opponent will counter with the proposition that God/gods were responsible for the "spark of life" that initiated evolution on earth, a matter I discussed at length in Round 1. I will reiterate my points made in that post by stating such an act would not constitute intelligent design; rather, it would simply be "a one-time directed movement of matter and energy which might not leave discernible evidence these billions of years later", to quote William Hamby of the Atlanta Atheist Examiner.
Debate Round No. 2
PotBelliedGeek

Con

My opponent apologizes for harping on definition. To that I say there is no need for apology. I fully expected this to be a debate of definition.


Rebuttals:


1. "In Round 2, my opponent stated that evolution was "the idea (fact) that organisms can genetically change from generation to generation, and that through this, natural selection causes species to adapt to their environment." This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is in a biological context. The following is a definition of evolution from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:


biology: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time"

My opponent begins by attacking my understanding of the concept "Evolution". He proceeds to support his claim with a definition taken out of Merriam-Webster dictionary. Here is the link to his definition, and I will point out to the voters that he failed to provide proper references for his quotes.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


I will begin my rebuttal by pointing out that my opponent uses a COMMON DICTIONARY to point out a SCIENTIFIC TERM. I do not know my opponents education level, but In college we learn to go to primary sources for our information. I will also point out, on a subnote, that I am a biologist, and to assert that I am ignorant of the fundamental dogma of MY OWN SPECIALTY, based on a short dictionary definition is counter intuitive.


In support of my definition, I will provide excerpts from scientific sources.


1. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).[1]


2. Evolution:

Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.[2]


3.

There are three important concepts within evolutionary biology:

  1. the definition of evolution (common ancestry and descent with modification)

  2. the processes of evolutionary change (for example, natural selection and genetic drift)

  3. The patterns of evolutionary relationships (depicted as phylogenetic trees or cladograms).[3]

4.The process by which the genetic structure of populations changes over time.[4]


5. Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.[5]


Here I have provided reliable definitions of evolution from reputable academic sources.


I will note here that NONE of these definitions contain a clause that denies the possibility of this process taking place at divine command.


2.""Natural" is underlined to illuminate one of many major points within this debate. The very premise of evolution relies upon natural processes which are dependent upon non-intelligent selection. If God/gods were indeed influencing these alterations, inconsistencies in scientific observations that could not be dismissed with natural principles would emerge, and as these inconsistencies are non-existent, the two "theories" remain incompatible and radically different in their various postulates."

Here my opponent claims that if something happens "naturally", then it by definition negates the involvement of deity.

This is a fallacy in his logic. If the world came about via intelligent design, then by definition that intelligent DESIGN masterminded the processes and functions of the creation, and all natural phenomena are ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN OR PLAN.


My opponent bases another clause on his already faulty assumptions. Since nature and deity are two separate and unrelated things, according to my opponent, then we would see inconsistencies in science.


This is refutable from yet another standpoint. A major concept in intelligent design is the infallible nature of the deity. Given this perfection and freedom of error, there would be no inconsistencies even if the deity and nature were two unrelated forces.


In short, my opponent fails to illustrate the incompatibility of the two concepts, Evolution and ID. therefore my original argument stands.

Sources:

1. Berkeley. "Understanding Evolution." Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley, July 2004. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

2.NAS. "Evolution ResourcesFrom the National Academies." Evolution Resources from the National Academies. National Academy of Sciences, Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

3.NCSE. "Defining Evolution | NCSE." Defining Evolution | NCSE. National Center for Science Education, 17 Oct. 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

4."Biological Evolution Definition." Biological Evolution. Northwestern University, 26 July 2004. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

5. Utoronto. "What Is Evolution?" What Is Evolution? University of Toronto, Dec. 2006. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

Nulosaur

Pro


I would like to begin by stating that my arguments in Round 2 were not intended to insult or otherwise attack my opponent; rather, they were formulated on the basis that Con was neglecting the natural, non-intelligent facets of evolution. I also acknowledge the scientific competence demonstrated by his acquiescence of a biology degree and denote that I too am a scientist, though biology is not my specialty. Regardless, I find it necessary to comment that, as this is not a college debate, the validity of a common dictionary definition could (and should) be perceived to be equivalent to an academic definition, as neither source has been proclaimed as superior by an intermediary force.


Rebuttals:


1. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).[1]”


This definition, extracted from an article published by the University of Berkley, describes evolution without including a clause that would prohibit divine intervention, as Con made abundantly clear. Unfortunately, my opponent failed to provide a URL to the previously mentioned article, but I managed to locate it after a brief Google search. The article, entitled “An Introduction to Evolution”, is exceedingly simplistic and was obviously formulated to educate an otherwise complex and convoluted subject in a manner capable of being grasped by a layman, and I question its reliability in the context of an intellectual debate. Within this article, the following passage is accessible (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...):


Mutations are Random


The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.


Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.


As randomness does not exclusively pertain to biology, I find it permissible to utilize the following Merriam-Webster dictionary definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com...):


2random

adjective


: chosen, done, etc., without a particular plan or pattern


Full Definition of RANDOM


a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern


As I have already established that mutations are a facet of biological evolution, it can be concluded that these random alterations (that is to say, alterations that occur without guidance or purpose) are the products of little more than external forces and mathematical equations and thus negate divine intervention.


My opponent challenges my assertion that natural occurrences negate the involvement of a deity or deities in the following lines:


“Here my opponent claims that if something happens "naturally", then it by definition negates the involvement of deity.


This is a fallacy in his logic. If the world came about via intelligent design, then by definition that intelligent DESIGN masterminded the processes and functions of the creation, and all natural phenomena are ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN OR PLAN.”


Ironically, these statements illuminate my opponent’s fallacious logic rather than “exposing” my own, assuming such logic exists. As I stated in Rounds 1 and 2, intelligent origin is not identical to intelligent design, for a one time movement of matter and energy that initiated the natural processes responsible for evolution is not axiomatically identical to the deliberate design of organisms throughout their adaptive cycles. With that, I leave it to my opponent to refute my arguments.





Debate Round No. 3
PotBelliedGeek

Con

I thank my opponent for an excellent argument.

*** "I also acknowledge the scientific competence demonstrated by his acquiescence of a biology degree and denote that I too am a scientist, though biology is not my specialty."

My first response is not a rebuttal but an apology. In his use of a common dictionary (secondary/inferior source) to explain a scientific term, I perceived of my opponent an education level not any higher than highschool, and a pre-conceived notion of what Evolution entailed. I then highlighted my own education level in an attempt to sell my credibility to the voters as superior. Since then my opponent has updated his profile and from it I learned that he has attained a PhD. This clause is an apology for my assumption/arrogance and a humble acknowledgement that my opponent is by far my superior in his education.

That said, on with the debate!

1. "as this is not a college debate, the validity of a common dictionary definition could (and should) be perceived to be equivalent to an academic definition, as neither source has been proclaimed as superior by an intermediary force."

My opponent insists that in this setting, a common dictionary is as appropriate for scientific terms as primary/scientific sources. I will not debate this, but leave it to the voters to decide. For my part, I will continue to use academic sources for this debate, and to treat this debate as academic/college level.

2. "Full Definition of RANDOM


a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern


As I have already established that mutations are a facet of biological evolution, it can be concluded that these random alterations (that is to say, alterations that occur without guidance or purpose) are the products of little more than external forces and mathematical equations and thus negate divine intervention."

Here my opponent, in a very tactful move, uses my own sources to illustrate the random nature of the mutations involved in the evolutionary process.
His argument is that random, as defined above, does not allow for the pre-designed system proposed by the idea of intelligent design. His logic is fallible in that ID DOES NOT NECESSITATE that the Deity actively directed each mutation as passed on to the next generation. ID asserts that the deity DESIGNED THIS PROCESS to function in that manner, including that randomness as a deliberate mechanism for the progress of evolution.

I will draw an analogy to clarify this point.

A software engineer designs a program which includes a mathematical function. His program will generate random numbers, and insert them into the function. The function is then altered, again by random numbers, and the process repeats. Thus the program evolves based on random number changes.

In this example, a random element existed WITHIN A DESIGNED PROCESS.

The point being that the randomness of an element does not negate design of the process within which it functions. It is also illogical to say that the programmer was the origin, but not designer, of the process.

In short, the random factor of the mutation does not negate that evolution is a designed process through which the deity alters life on earth.

My opponents arguments do not stand up to analysis and thus his conclusions are not supported. And so my original assertion stands, that the ideas of intelligent design and evolution are not inherently contradictory, especially when view as the latter being the method of the first.

I apologize again to my opponent for my erroneous assumptions at the beginning of this debate.
With that I leave it to my opponent to prove his point.

Nulosaur

Pro

Rebuttal 1:

“His argument is that random, as defined above, does not allow for the pre-designed system proposed by the idea of intelligent design. His logic is fallible in that ID DOES NOT NECESSITATE that the Deity actively directed each mutation as passed on to the next generation. ID asserts that the deity DESIGNED THIS PROCESS to function in that manner, including that randomness as a deliberate mechanism for the progress of evolution.


I will draw an analogy to clarify this point.


A software engineer designs a program which includes a mathematical function. His program will generate random numbers, and insert them into the function. The function is then altered, again by random numbers, and the process repeats. Thus the program evolves based on random number changes.


In this example, a random element existed WITHIN
A DESIGNED PROCESS.

My opponent uses this analogy in an attempt to assert that the engineer (a deity or deities) designed a program (evolution) to generate random numbers (life forms) and continued to generate additional numbers by basing each successive generation off the previous. This logic is fallacious as it negates the definition of intelligent design, which can be accessed via the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

“Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an ‘intelligent designer.’”

The engineer is not creating the numbers; rather, he is simply enabling a mechanism to generate the numbers for him, an act that constitutes intelligent origin but not intelligent design. As this definition establishes, ID is dependent upon organisms being created (NOT DESIGNED) in their present forms, an axiom which extinguishes the potential for evolution to be a relevant factor in their development.

Rebuttal 2:

It is also illogical to say that the programmer was the origin, but not designer, of the process.

My opponent has established that, for these two concepts (evolution and ID) to be compatible, God/gods must not intervene once the mechanisms by which evolutionary changes are implemented have been initiated. Once again, I refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com...):

a: rise, beginning, or derivation from a source

b: the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>”

Designer (http://www.merriam-webster.com...):

a person who plans how something new will look and be made”

Through these definitions, we can see that a designer is not identical to a deity from which life originated. Therefore, I once again inform my opponent that the two are grammatically and scientifically incompatible and ask that he produce legitimate arguments which would refute my point (in a respectful manner, of course).

Debate Round No. 4
PotBelliedGeek

Con

PotBelliedGeek forfeited this round.
Nulosaur

Pro


I would like to state that Con’s inability to post an argument prior to his deadline should not sway your analysis of our arguments, nor should it be a relevant factor if and when you decide to vote. With that said, I shall conclude this debate by summarizing my arguments.



1. The definition of intelligent design negates the potential for evolution to be a relevant factor in an organism’s development.


As I stated in Round 4, the definition of intelligent design is as follows:


Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an ‘intelligent designer.’”


Evolution is an exceedingly gradual and subtle process responsible for molding simplistic, single-celled organisms into unfathomably convoluted entities over the course of millions (if not billions) years. Note the presence of “created” in the definition above; this implies that a prerequisite for the presence of intelligent design is the spontaneous generation of a complex organism, NOT the development of it.



2. Intelligent origin and intelligent design are not identical.


In Round 4, I established that the definitions of origin and design(er) are radically different and utterly incompatible. If a deity or deities were responsible for abiogenesis (the initial “spark of life”, so to speak), that act does not constitute intelligent design, for the entities in question were not created in their present forms. If a deity or deities were influencing the evolutionary alterations of a particular organism throughout a prolonged period of time, that would constitute divine intervention and prevent the various axioms of evolution from taking effect.



3. If intelligent design and evolution “coexisted”, we would see a plethora of inconsistencies that could not be dismissed with scientific principles. Such inconsistencies are not emerging, nor have they ever emerged.


I stated the following in Round 2:


""Natural" is underlined to illuminate one of many major points within this debate. The very premise of evolution relies upon natural processes which are dependent upon non-intelligent selection. If God/gods were indeed influencing these alterations, inconsistencies in scientific observations that could not be dismissed with natural principles would emerge, and as these inconsistencies are non-existent, the two "theories" remain incompatible and radically different in their various postulates."



4. Con’s sources are simplistic, unreliable, and contradictory.


In Round 3, I mentioned that the source utilized by Con in the preceding round seemed to be have written with the intent of educating a layman and even contradicted his point by later denoting the presence of random occurrences within evolutionary processes, the most notable of which being mutations. The notion that said occurrences were a facet of a deity’s “grand plan” violates the definition of ID, which, as I have stated numerous times, requires organisms to be spawned in their present forms without the influence of external forces.



With that, I hand the argument over to the voters and thank my opponent for a succinct and exceptionally well-crafted argument.



Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
Therefore, we can also regard the continuous evolutionary processing of a life-form and subsequent life-forms as being provided by pre-constructed automated (scientific) processes within (a) the evolution system (b) the habitable ecosystem and/or (b) respective life-forms themselves.

And as long as the IO both of the evolution system and the habitable ecosystem remembers to trigger/originate "time" (i.e., the starting clock which is synchronized with the time-based scientific processes), it is logical to assume that the IO of the first life-form is also the intelligent designer of all things that are subsequently formed via his designed automated evolutionary processes within his created/designed habitable ecosystem including all subsequent life-forms which as far as we know are all unique and/or original "products."
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
The debaters both seem to agree that the starting environment includes (a) an intelligent originator (IO), (b) an initial life-form that was created/provided by the IO, (c) an evolution system and (d) a habitable environment/ecosystem in which the evolution system is included or integrated.
If there is no other intelligent originator (IO), then it seems reasonable to assume that the (same) IO also originated the evolution system as well as the habitable ecosystem in which the evolution system is ultimately included/integrated and operates. Then, there is no logical contradiction in concluding that the IO can manually build the evolution system using multiple stages over a particular length of time and be credited as the ID of the evolution system comprising a collection of time-based scientific processes.
It also seems logical to assume that the IO designed/created all the starting components, mechanisms and systems that can initially interact within the habitable ecosystem. These starting components include the "rules of interaction" (i.e., all the possible scientific processes), the designed evolutionary process and the initial life-form.
Maybe we can agree that there is no logical contradiction up to this point.
Let's again consider the evolution system. Let us assume that the IO of the evolution system had alternatively decided to automate the evolution system building process. The IO could take all the scientific processes that could be used for manual development and assembled them together to create the evolution system using an automated process that gets completed using multiple stages over a specific timeframe with only one starting trigger by the IO. Again, the IO can still be credited as ID of the completed evolution system.

to be continued...
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
post this in the unovted section of DDO, you won this in my opinion. The ff hurt you but I still figured you argued better.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
I would like to apologize to my opponent for the forfeit. Unforeseen circumstances at work prevented me from posting my argument in time.
Posted by leebowman 3 years ago
leebowman
Does Evolution negate Intelligent Design?

Depends on how ID is understood (theorized). First, some of the various design hypotheses:

" Total design (ex nihilo)
" Incremental design by alterations de novo and ex nihilo
" Gene tweaks to consummate major morphologic alterations
" Gene tweaks on a trial and error basis to see what works to produce novelty
" Other interventionary means

The first postulate, if causative for each and every taxa, could possibly negate evolution. But if only occasional or incremental alterations, then not necessarily.

Further, if alterations by evolutionary processes were only at the species and genus level, contributed to fitness in its current environment, and were subsequently fixed within a population, they would fit the Darwinian premise of natural causation.

Does Intelligent Design negate evolution?

No, as long as design interventions were

" non-adaptive,
" occasional,
" incremental,
" and consummated eventually in novel redesigns.

Again, ID would only negate evolutionary processes which appear to be a built-in function to

" produce diversity (variation in outward appearances, mentality, and dispositions),
" help to adapt to environmental changes, thus reducing instances of extinction,

contra to ID being continuous and ongoing at all levels, of which there is no evidence. Adaptation appears to result from random selection from an inherent underlying gene pool within each organism, with natural selection as the process to fixate the most efficacious traits within a localized population. Epigenetics may also be an adaptive causative factor.
Posted by Numidious 3 years ago
Numidious
I think most atheists, of which I am one, would argue the following.

A) While as a scientific theory evolution does not negate intelligent design, (better known as theism) it does seem to make theism much less likely. God becomes a god of the gaps, where he uses increasingly more abstract and purposeless mechanisms to do things he apparently could do in an infinitesimally small amount of time.

B) Although evolution is a point that negates something god is said to have done, or is said to have had to have done, it was never intended to be a point against the existence of a less interventionist, or more deistic, god. In this case the resolution would have to be that theoretical physics, or more generally science and philosophy, negate god or intelligent design.

C) This is unless god is said to have directly intervened AFTER the Big Bang, and during the process of evolution. If your god involves himself, for instance, in micro evolution, then I'm in for a debate.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Thank you, inspired. When I say evolution, I mean the scientific theory in its entirety. This includes the idea that over enough time, a species can evolve into a new species. My clarification was to say that I will not argue that humans evolved from apes, or an apelike creature, but only that the idea of life forming evolutionary on earth is not contradictory to ID. I will work on a new title so as to clarify this idea. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Posted by Inspired 3 years ago
Inspired
I believe this title can be a bit misleading. The only way that you would know you are referring to the concept of adaptation (the scientific "evolution") is because you clarified it at the end of your R1. I would rephrase it from evolution to adaptation and variation. It better suits the idea you are attempting to get across. The idea of a species evolving from one kind into another is broadly termed macro evolution. Adaptation and variation as micro evolution.

I agree with you by the way. Micro evolution completely agrees with intelligent design as does survival of the fittest.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
As an explanation for any given biological system they can co-exist, but when people say these two together they often mean the contradictory ideas that life on earth can only be explained by ID vs it can also be explained (and better) by evolution.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
By evolution, do you mean the evolution of human beings or just evolution in general?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
PotBelliedGeekNulosaurTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF'd and his use of bold underlined ALLCAPS words made him look angry. Con twisted the definition of intelligent design to suit his purpose, from "at least one theistic deity[...]designed life forms as they are today" to "at least one theistic deity[...]designed the thing that designed life forms as they are today."
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
PotBelliedGeekNulosaurTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both did extremely well in this debate, and while i support Pro he had a few points that just erked me and that seemed almost off base. One claiming that if theistic evolution were real, and gods intervened in the process it would not be considered natural evolution. Almost as if Natural is defend by (x) - so if anything plays a part in altering the variables then it is not natural. That is a poor argument for evolution. Pro swiftly refuted this with an excellent rebuttal. Outside of that almost all of the rounds were somewhat equal. Cons source were noticeably more accurate, because pro simply used the dictionary for most of is and relied on a play of words. While con missing a round did hurt his arguments, It was not enough to award it to pro but enough so that it should not be awarded to con. A ff hurts the person , and if con had a chance to answer some of the rebuttals in that round, I believe he woudl have won arguments. So sources to con and conduct to pro
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
PotBelliedGeekNulosaurTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: The central point of this debate was that since mutations are random - so if evolution is true then organisms aren't designed as they are seen today - if an intelligent designer created the process of evolution then can the result be considered intelligent design (and hence ID and Evo. are compatible)? Pro argues no - not as ID is usually defined (or, in fact, how Con defines it). While the process of evolution may be designed, evolution via random mutation is not intelligent design and if an intelligent designer didn't "intentionally [create] life, and [design] living organisms as [they] are today", then intelligent design (as defined) is false and hence evolution negates intelligent design - Arguments to Pro. Con's sources were used with more relevance to the arguments put forth (Pro mainly used sources to define common terms) - Sources to Con. Con forfeited the last round - Conduct to Pro.