The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 45409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Having recently watched and analysed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright, I would like to attempt to argue Dawkins point myself, and also explore rebuttals to his view.

I believe that intelligent design arguments are flawed because they assume that the universe has a inherent purpose, and that it has been designed to reach that purpose however, I think that the machinations of the universe are entirely down to chance and the laws of physics controlling the consequences to that chance.

Evolution shows this random chance in the development of the life forms on Earth. Instead of the idea that each animal has a purpose, all which combine to create a harmonious network, all of which points to a intelligent designer, I believe that Animals simply adapt by chance and the application of fundamental laws that promote animal growth. I would also argue that throughout evolution there are many examples of extinct species that have obviously been ill-designed to survive.
Throughout this argument, my main point will be that it is completely legitimate that the universe was created by chance, as demonstrated through evolution, rather than designed by an intelligent being with a purpose in mind.


Not such as good topic for your first debate, but i'll roll with it. I will be arguing for theistic evolution.

Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken.

My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the non self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve.
Debate Round No. 1


My debate was more intended towards creationism vs evolution, rather than atheistic evolution against theistic evolution, but never mind.

I fail to see the idea behind both of your examples. Taking the second example, you say that normal flowers would've died out because Bees took longer to adapt and evolve than flowers. Firstly, I don't believe this is necessarily true, as evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate. If a flower is able to survive in its environment, then there would be no need for self-pollinating flowers, as the normal flowers would be surviving and passing on lots of offspring anyway.The only reason self-pollinating flowers would be useful would be if the bees evolved not to. There would be no reason for bees not to pollinate, as they require the nectar they gather during pollination. Also, I don't see how the explanation that God created their ancestors is any explanation at all. Creating their ancestors would make no change to your idea of continuous evolution and the conclusion that flowers would "out-strip" bees in evolution.

You seem to be subscribing to a "God of the Gaps" theory, simply using God as an explanation for things you don't believe Science can explain. This approach is obviously flawed, as many people have found, using God as the reason for the things which science has now fully explained.


Rebuttal 1:

You fail to see it . A plant cell is less complex than an animal cell. This could make the evolution time span different for the two of them. You are saying that the evolution time span does not happen on a constant rate. This could also mean that the bee could evolve first and, without the nectar to make honey, would cause the species to die off. Everything would have to evolve at just the right time to make a stable earth. Like, shrimp would have to evolve almost the exact same time as fish.

Rebuttal 2:

Really? Show me. How is it flawed?

My opponent fails to answer my question head on. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Answer and explain it next round or I ask the readers to give me the convincing arguments points.
Debate Round No. 2


I can't see how the bee would evolve to be unable to take nectar from the plants, if it would lead to its own demise? If a bee was unable to make honey, it would die off ,as you said, and therefore wouldn't pass on its ineffective genes, which is how evolution works. There is no reason why a bee would evolve differently, such as evolving to get nectar more effectively, or some other way which would not affect the plants at all. I would agree that in some cases, animals evolve in response to other animals, but this is not always the case, as shown with your example. There are other cases where animals have been unable to adapt, and so have died off, surely showing that the whole process of evolution is chance and not designed. I still can't see how your example would prove theistic evolution.

I didn't think I would have to point out the flaws in the "God of the Gaps" reasoning. How many times have religious explanations for things been proved wrong by science? An example would be the heliocentric universe, which went against the church's ideas of the Earth being in the centre of the universe. Yet which idea is right? Every time science can't explain something, God is used in place of understanding. And every time a explanation is uncovered, God is moved to the next unanswered question.

I can't see how an answer on the chicken or egg helps your side. I feel a little guilty for not addressing before if you really believed it helped your cause, but I felt it offered very little in the way of evidence, and chose to answer the (slightly) more valid point. Your answer, helped by your belief in God was "God created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken". I can't see how that helps you, as I would agree that the ancestor of the chicken evolved into a chicken. The fact that the chicken had an ancestor gives us no information of any use to come to a conclusion. The only thing your point states is that God created the ancestor of the chicken. But there is no evidence of this at all, and so falls under faith rather than science, which requires evidence. As for an actual answer, I think it is neither, as you could not point to one egg and say "That egg started the chicken species". Instead, the chicken developed throughout a immensely long period of time, with different eggs adding different characteristics of the chicken thus, the chicken is a result from the development and evolution of many different animals spanning a long period of time. It does not require the existence of God to answer, especially with the reasoning you have put forward.


Rebuttal 1:

Nope. Wrong again. The plant would die because there would be no complex flying organisms to pollinate it. This is one problem with atheistic evolution. You can not explain that.

Rebuttal 2:

I'm not arguing for the bible. This is for theistic evolution. I don't see the point in this argument.

Rebuttal 3:

This does not explain close to anything. You need a female and male sex cell to combine to make an organism that sexually reproduce. If this is true, it is going against everything science has already established. Here is how my answer applies to my side. God made the ancestor. Atheistic evolution offers no explanation for the origin of cells. Also, my opponent must realize that this is not possible.

I suggest he has not disproved theistic evolution. I also suggest he has not proved atheistic evolution. Thank you for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was intelligent design vs evolution. Theistic evolution isn't the same thing as intelligent design. Con argued the wrong point and arguments go to pro.