Evoltution v. Intelligent Design
1. Is what you are reading now, you need only reply to agree to this format or object.
2. Talking Points (This is our chance to throw punches).
3. Scientific Reasoning (In my case, I would be defending Bible claims).
4. Abstract Reasons (Beliefs, quotes, self evident examples...) & rebuttal.
5. Final Remarks (Closing up loose ends and final rebuts).
I eagerly await the start of this debate.
The challenge is accepted.
In our previous debate, we covered the concept of purpose, which I am sure that my opponent recalls very well. I wish to revisit this point, but in a deeper, more thorough way. This is my thesis: the theory of evolution devalues human life.
In saying that all "organic beings" are in a constant state of evolution, Darwin puts forth the idea that as each generation passes, the next one will be more robust and more fit to live. This is UN-Biblical for several reasons, which I'm sure that my opponent has discovered in his thorough investigation of the fore mentioned book, which I highly esteem; in fact i believe it to be the ultimate authority. There are; however, some self proclaimed "Christians" that believe in evolution. The Bible is clearly against evolution. According to scriptures God created man in one gesture and then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This is completely contrary to evolutionary theory. I could continue to expound on Biblical truths, but my opponent does not believe the Bible, so that would be unpersuasive indeed.
If there is no God and no over reaching truths (which my opponent vehemently denied the existence of in our former debate) then it is simply coincidence that all governments have many of the same laws. In general, people around the world will agree that it is wrong to murder, to rape, to steal. When did we evolve to the point of deciding not to do those horrible deed? Is someone who commits one of the said things a mutant or a "missing link" because they are not as evolved as a majority of humanity is? If there is no right and wrong, is it wrong to break the law, seeing as there are no moral consequences for doing so? And the questions could go on forever. However, if there is right and wrong, and if there is a God, then there would be incentive to not harm our fellow man, and, in fact, we Christians live to HELP our fellow man. If evolution is true, there is not right or wrong.
As discussed in our former debate, if we humans are descended from animals and distant cousins of apes, then that would make our lives of equal value. If someone truly believes in evolution and values human life at the s time, that person must be a vegetarian. If humans are animals, then we must respect the lives of all of our relatives. From the great Angus beef to the excellent Polish sausages, all eating of meat, poultry, and fish must cease immediately. On the other hand, one who is a vehement adherent to the theory of evolution who also eats flesh would be a hypocrite to stand against cannibalism. If evolution is true, then humans are just a type of mammal and should be treated as such.
Evolution does not only cheapen life, but it also breeds racism. For just a second, without trying to think of a rebuttal, I wish that my opponent would listen to some plain reasoning. It is highly unlikely that seven billion objects can evolve simultaneously and at the same exact rate. This means that some humans are more evolved than others (supremacy). Most evolutionists believe that human evolution began on the continent of Africa (the continent most heavily populated with primates). That would mean that the humans that are farthest from Africa are the most evolved, and indeed, the chart that hangs in most science class rooms would suggest that black folk are closer to monkeys than any other race.
At the bottom of this argument there is a link to a website that is pro-evolutionary theory. In the article there is a picture of the process of evolution that my opponent should examine. He will find that while the second to last and third to last men look African in origin, the last man is as Caucasian as can be, and if my opponent were to Google image "monkey to man," he will find the same picture in different forms, all saying that the white man is the farthest form of evolution. These pictures are blatantly racist and should be taken down from every school room. Just abstractly, in my last debate with my opponent, he stated that the government should mandate content that children are taught to avoid teaching racism and discrimination. I, having been home schooled my whole life plus one semester as a full time college student, have never been taught racism or discrimination. On the other hand, these pictures of the "Evolution of Man" are in every school, demeaning our fellow Africans. Evolution is a racist theory because it is impossible that seven billion people can evolve at the same rate. The theory of evolution leaves the door open to thoughts of racial superiority based on the thinking that not all people are evolved to the same point. This thought has led to the extermination of Millions of Jews and Slavs (especially Polish), Africans and Australian aborigines (the aborigines were hunted down for science experiments because they were considered lesser beings. Today, over one thousand skulls of hunted aborigines sit in the basement of the Smithsonian Institute).
Besides the fact that evolution devalues all human life, it devalues the lives of other races. Evolution is a dangerous theory that should never, ever be taught to children.
Here I stand.
I thank my opponent for his exposition and will now offer mine in turn.
The first point con offers is that the idea Darwin puts forth that "as each generation passes, the next one will be more robust and more fit to live" is un-biblical. I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate. Using the Bible to prove biblical views true is the same as using a Spiderman comic to prove Spiderman exists.
Second, my opponent claims that evolution cannot account for the fact that many or all governments have certain laws that are the same, and that the existence of God and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" in their own right is necessary to account for the existence of laws and a certain moral consensus. However, this is a completely false statement.
What accounts for the creation of laws is the capability of the human race to socially evolve (social evolution is a subconcept of evolutionary biology and therefore correspondent to evolution as a whole ), to agree upon certain things, to form conventions and rules that are deemed beneficial, and to improve them as time passes.
To begin with, laws and rules did not always exist. There was a time when there was no rule or consensus preventing people from hurting each other. However, at a certain point in history it was realized that individuals could better pursue their interests if they cooperated instead of perpetuating conflict, and to assure it would be so, they created rules we call laws, and empowered certain members of their communities (what we would call the government) to enforce these rules. The point of transition from a lawless "state of nature" to a society with primitive laws and governments is what we generally recognize as being the beginning of civilization.
Thus, the answer to my opponent's question is this - we evolved to the point of "not doing these horrible deeds" when we realized they do more harm than good. At the beginning, these first rules were not morally motivated, but rather pragmatically motivated. Later, as society evolved further, and with it, philosophy and the study of the nature of humanity, man developed the idea that something might be "universally right" or "universally wrong" and the concept of morals was created. Modern laws are thus a combination of morals and pragmatism.
Also, the fact that society evolved from not having laws, to having primitive laws and finally to having certain universal, moral and pragmatical laws is consistent with the idea that, as my opponent puts it, "as each generation passes, the next one will be more robust and more fit to live". After all, society did evolve from being simple to being increasingly complex.
Another thing I wish to comment on, which follows naturally from what was said above is that, yes, according to evolution, right and wrong do not exist - not in their own right. The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are concepts developed by man to designate what societies consider to be beneficial/justified, or not so. The idea of what is right or moral is not universal, and after all, different individuals will consider different things to be moral depending on their ethnicity, religion etc.
Also, one cannot categorically claim that the incentive not to harm others must come from religion. I, for one, do not feel inclined to harm other human beings; however, I am irreligious. The difference is that most irreligious people believe are that morals stem from our own realization of what is right or wrong rather than having a supernatural force mandate it. After all, the ability to develop the concepts of "right" or "wrong" is a consequence of social evolution, and this social evolution is what puts us on top of the evolutionary chain.
This brings me to my next point of refutation. Exactly the fact that we, as humans, are intellectually superior to all other lifeforms is the reason that we are on top of the chain. Supremacy of the stronger over the weaker when it comes to relations between different species is necessary to maintain natural balance, especially when it comes to the food chain.
As said in the following quote, "...the food chain is an important part of biodiversity because it keeps ecosystems in balance. If one part of the food chain becomes extinct, it can affect all the other plants and animals". 
In the same way as a cat would eat an insect, or a tiger would eat a wild boar or an antilope, humans, as omnivores, pray on other animals due to the fact that they're superior in the food chain. This is no matter of "hypocrisy" or "morals", this is a matter of basic natural balance. Therefore, exactly the opposite of my opponent's reasoning is true - the most vehement advocate of evolution would also be the most vocal supporter of maintaining the principle of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to the food chain.
Finally, my opponent claims that "seven billion objects" couldn't have evolved simultaneously and at the same rate. This claim simply serves to show how badly my opponent fails to understand evolution. Firstly, we cannot monitor evolution on an individual level, but rather on the level of the entire species in a huge amount of time (millions of years). The evolution of man started with the divergence of primates from other mammals, which occured 85 million years ago. 
These "seven billion objects" my opponent speaks about are currently living beings that are all going to be dead in at most a hundred years, which is far too little time to observe evolutionary differences. Also, the reason why it cannot be said that certain humans are "more evolved" is that all humans belong to the same species - Homo sapiens. Certain individuals differ from others in individual characteristics, just as any living being, but on a large scale, when it comes to races and the entire species, there are no evolutionary differences.
Another thing I must mention in this point is that the fact that human evolution is considered to have begun in Africa would mean a difference in evolutionary traits, because, as time progressed, a part of the human species migrated from Africa to other continents, but they all continued to evolve at the same rate, irrelevant of their location.
Racism therefore isn't a byproduct of evolution per se, it's a byproduct of misunderstanding evolution. It's a byproduct of certain individuals or groups taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the masses, and using a scientific theory as an excuse to further their political creed.
Yes, evolution can be "dangerous" when misunderstood, but so can every idea ever invented by man. This is not an issue of the idea of evolution, or whether or not it is true in its own right, it is an issue of how successful our educational system is at teaching facts and preventing misinterpretation. Therefore, to claim that racism is a direct consequence of evolution is simply a non sequitur.
After dealing with my opponent's case, I will now present my own positive content.
Firstly, evolution is a consistent theory.
Millions of pieces of evidence were found in support of evolution, constantly and consistently filling in certain gaps in the theory. It must be taken into account that if only one piece of evidence was found to contradict the theory of evolution, due to its nature, the theory would have come crashing down. Such a piece has not been found, and the chances of it being found are becoming increasingly astronomical as more and more evidence is being found in support.
Also, it must be pointed out that evolution is a scientific theory, in contrast to its alternative (creationism), which isn't a theory, but isn't a hypothesis either, due to the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, and creationism is neither. 
Therefore, evolution is:
a) The only scientifically acceptable explanation available
b) Supported with by an incredible amount of evidence
To offer certain examples, atavisms  are one of the many proofs of evolution we have witnessed through scientific research. Atavisms, defined as evolutionary throwbacks, are certain traits that are considered obsolete. For example, the human appendix is an atavism, as well as the appearance of "tails" in certain individuals (humans possess a tailbone, the coccyx, which can, in rare cases, grow into a tails). Such appeareances were also documented in human embryos. Defunct genes - genes that were used for a certain purpose at a certain point in time, but are, due to the advancement of species, now unnecessary - are also proof of evolution and of how evolutionary traits change.
A few other examples are the following :
More examples can be found in the given source, but the character count prevents me from posting them all.
Finally, I'd just like to make a short remark on the following fact - this debate is a comparative debate. It is not only a debate on whether evolution is true, but it is also a debate on whether intelligent design is true. When it comes to a comparative analysis of the two explanation, evolution definitely takes the win due to sheer preponderance of evidence, and this is another reason why you should vote pro in this debate.
I stand firm and undaunted in proposition.
Pro maintains the stance that there are no inconsistencies in evolution. The most obvious rebuff of this is the lack of missing links - a point even admitted by Darwin in chapter three of the Origin of Species. According to a respected scientist, Dr. Hovind, evolutionary theory errors in four areas - 1) The assumption that the universe is billions of years old; 2) Life coming from non-living minerals; 3) mutations creating or improving a species; and 4) Natural selection having creative power. I cannot begin to break down all that means in the space allotted, but "Pro" can surely imagine what each point means because it sums up most of what I have already stated.
If I were able to demonstrate to "Pro" that the world is only seven thousand years old, then that would dis-spell the first major tenant of evolution, "the earth and the natural organisms in the earth have been evolving over billions of years." Here are a couple abstract facts that limit the age of the earth.
The shrinking of the sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is in a constant state of shrinking both in mass and diameter. This change has been consistent since the beginning. If the world is indeed billions of years old, the sun's mass would have upset the gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance to maintain and support life .
The moon is traveling inches away from earth every year . This change has been charted for nearly half a century. If the world were truly billions of years old, the moon would have been so close to the earth as to have been nearly touching it. But surely, the tides would have overtaken most of the world in a great flood only paralleled by the Noahic flood.
If "Pro" wishes, there are many more of these "anomalies" that I am perfectly willing to share.
Enough otter space evidences, are there any fossils or occurrences on earth that suggest that the world cannot be billions of years old?
This evidence is courtesy of the great American novelist, Samuel Clemens. The Mississippi river has been shrinking consistently since it was first discovered by Hernando de Soto in the 1500's. If this rate had been constant for billions of years, the Mississippi river would have been millions of miles long also.
However, my opponent will probably refute most of what I have stated by saying that he is not a Uniformatarianist, and that he does not believe that these processes have been occurring because the earth is billions of year old, and had these been happening the situation on earth would be dire indeed. This is circular reasoning, another tactic that evolutionists have perfected.
But still, there is more evidence that suggests that the world is only a few thousand years old. The current population (over seven billion) could have easily spawned from eight people in a little over four thousand years. Evidence, human growth trends, even suggests that this was in fact the case. If that is not enough to give credence to intelligent design, the oldest coral reef in the world in 4200 years old; the oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old. Is it not ironic that all three of these fact coincide? Christians believe that the flood occurred over four thousand years ago, which also happens to be the life time of the oldest living organisms. Whether one believes in evolution or not, one would have to admit the existence of a world-wide flood. Not only does the Bible talk of such, but over 250 legends of world-wide floods had been found as of 1980. The flood was a very catastrophic happening that killed all beings that were on the earth except for the people and animals who entered the ark.
Some Bible Science:
By the way, I love the way that you compared the Bible to a Spider Man comic. The Bible is the single most respected and read book in the entire world, and if "Pro" does not understand why, then he cannot be helped. Evolution leaves humanity hopeless and alone, the Bible gives hope and incentive to live uprightly. Of course, Santa Claus does too, so why would "Pro" care? Also, "evolving morals" is a ludicrous concept. In order to win this debate, it would help if my opponent did not exist. So, I am going to utilize my powers of pragmatism, because it is beneficial to me, and I will hire and hit man to fly to Zagreb and get the job done. If everyone did what they thought was best, there would would be more murders, rapes, and theft then there are today. What "Pro" does not understand is the depravity of man, but alas, I will talk no further on the subject.
The Noahic flood is a integral part of intelligent design. The world, as we know it today, was not per se "created" by God, but rather, judged by God. The world that God created was a perfect biosphere in which there was not decay and no limit to growth (which is where dinosaurs come from, reptiles who never stopped growing). During the flood, the "depths opened," this created a vacuum of sorts which sucked the living organisms in, compressed them and mixed them, and over the years, these destroyed living organisms turned into minerals and fossil fuels that we use today . In nineteenth century America, whaling was a fairly large industry, one that Herman Melville wrote of in his novel Moby Dick. The oil found in whales was in fact a form of petroleum, but since petroleum deposits were so scarce in that day, American fishermen would hunt whale. During the flood, large creatures (such as the whale) were "swallowed up" by the earth and they rotted producing the great deposits that now exist today. The fumes from the decay of the organic substances created immense amounts of pressure, which is now used to generate electricity (Natural Gas). This is a highly reasonable and very likely explanation for much of the rock formations today that are used to by evolutionist to "prove" evolution.
But enough Bible science. "Pro" included an example of Archaeopteryx, which, according to my thought process (my lowly irrelevant thought processes) was immune system at work, not evolution.
For a few moments, I want discuss the Big Bang Theory. As mass compresses into a ball the size of a nickel, then, it explodes, and all the rock balls it formed find a star to circle around, evolution begins on earth, and that is how we got here today. I'm not intellectual, which I'm sure you can tell, but that is not scientific at all. To test this experiment, I got some of my friends, and we went to a park. Here in America, there are these things called merry-go-rounds, except for, these ones have no horses; just three bars that you hold onto. We got the thing going round and round really fast, and in our stupid American way, told the guys on the spinning saucer to jump off. Well, they all came spinning off, but they all fell down, dizzy, and in no humor to get back up.
Now that you have read that, we can thoroughly discus the spinning nickel theory. First of all, then the guys came spinning off the saucer, they were all rotating in the same direction. This is supposedly what occurred with the universe, and yet there are several planets that spin "backwards," such as Venus. This in it of itself refutes the Big Bang Theory, but there is more evidence that refutes it. Whenever has an explosion created order? The two largest explosions (meaning the largest explosions of lasting impact, not the ones that have never been used such as the Hydrogen bomb) were at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Both were scenes of massive devastation in 1945 when bombs were dropped on each of them. Explosions create disorder, not order.
"Pro" claims that creation is not a hypothesis; it is, and it is this - The universe that exists today maintains a delicate balance and intelligent life that can only be explained in this, the existence of an Almighty and all powerful God who created it. It is also a scientific theory because there is much evidence that suggest the world is, in fact, young.
This is where I stand, and here I firmly stand. Creation coincides with science, and science proves creation.
1) R. Kippenhahn, Discovering the Secrets of the Sun, Wiley Press, 1994.
SaintSimon forfeited this round.
On a personal note, I have enjoyed this debate to the fullest, you picked my brain and I deeply appreciate it.
SaintSimon forfeited this round.
SaintSimon forfeited this round.