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

Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution

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: 12/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 66939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)





Reliable- providing a close-fitting description of reality
Theory- a hypothesis backed up by empirical data


I will happily accept this debate. I would like to begin by offering the following definitions:

Hypothesis: A tentative assumption which can be tested [1].

Evolution: “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” [2].

With those out of the way, I defer to PRO so that he may make his case.




Debate Round No. 1


I accept my opponents definitions.

In this debate I will be arguing that the things in nature exhibit intelligence, and intelligent things can only be formed ultimately by an intelligence. I believe that is obviously true, at least more so than its negation, that blind nature shaped intelligent animals and humans.

Also the fact that pigs and cows exist. One is a form of food, the other pisses another form of food. How did those things survive to reproduce without human's intervention? It's impossible! Only creation could explain the existence of pig and cow.


I would like to thank PRO for making his case. Unfortunately, I have to take issue with nearly every part of it.

No Evidence

Right off the bat, PRO has made an error by claiming that “intelligent things can only be formed ultimately by an intelligence.” This is a claim which has not been demonstrated. I reject PRO’s claim that it is obvious, and request actual evidence in support of this assertion.


Regarding cows and pigs, PRO is claiming that their present form is “impossible” without human intervention. This is actually correct, as humans have selectively bred both pigs and cows [1]. Now, if the intelligent designer PRO is arguing for is humankind, he is correct. However, that is not what Intelligent Design (ID) means. ID refers to an intelligent designer that created the universe [2]. Therefore, if PRO is arguing that the designers here are humans, he fails.

On the other hand, it is possible, that PRO meant that an intelligent designer is required to make these animals the way they are. If this is indeed what PRO meant, it is a different fallacy. This would be akin to saying, “Since I cannot imagine how my keys got under the couch cushions, it must have been Bigfoot.” Yet another claim for which PRO needs to provide evidence.


Finally, I would like to address an overarching point. PRO has claimed that ID is a more reliable “Theory” than evolution. Per our agreed upon definitions, a theory is a hypothesis that has been backed up, and a hypothesis is a testable assumption. Therefore, in order to be a theory, ID must be testable. As PRO is claiming that ID is a theory, he must demonstrate that it is indeed testable. If he cannot, ID cannot be said to be a theory at all, let alone a more reliable one than evolution.



Debate Round No. 2


MrJosh, in order to understand the intelligence argument, you need to understand it is basic to assume there was an intelligent cause of intelligent things. In metaphysics, that is a basic assumption. Unless you present arguments to the contrary it shoudl be assumed this is the case and thus intelligent design holds true.

Secondly it is said that cows and pigs were created by humans and this has not been refuted by the linked paper. It is also claimed that i am making up a cause for them on a fallacious argument for the creation of cows and pigs. There is no evidence of this, it is just saying that creating cows and pigs is a better assumption than that they survived as forms of food for years in a survival of the fittest evolutionary paradigm.


I would like to thank PRO for providing his thoughts in this final round. I will begin:


PRO is claiming that the assumption that “intelligent things” require an “intelligent cause” is “basic” and should “be assumed.” He further claims that I carry the burden to argue against this assumption. I find this patently absurd. PRO has not demonstrated any reason that this assumption should presupposed, or that I carry any burden to debunk it, and I therefore reject it.

Cow and Pigs

I honestly have no idea what PRO is trying to argue here. I freely admit that cows and pigs have been selectively bred by humans, as my source demonstrates. I apologize if I inadvertently created a strawman; I honestly could not decipher PRO’s point, so I suggested two possible interpretations, and discussed them both.

Now, after this round, it seems that PRO’s original point is that the intelligence of humans was required to make cows and pigs into their present, useful forms. This I concede. The same can be said of corn, wheat, dogs, horses, and numerous other species. I’m not sure how this point does anything other than harm PRO’s position. Cows and pigs have changed over time due to selection pressures; in this case, humans. This is an analogue to evolution by natural selection.

Wrapping Up

PRO has failed to provide support for his point that intelligence requires an intelligent designer. His point about cows and pigs is indecipherable at best; harmful to his point at worst. Overall, he has not met his burden.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
I do hope Pro is trolling.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
This looks like an easy win for con
Posted by Kvasir 2 years ago
Round 2 and Creationist's striking argument is that cows and pigs work well with the human form of living? This debate will not be as interesting as I hoped. The debate is only 3 rounds with no arguments in the first round. With this shallow approach from the Instigator (carrying the burden of proof) halfway into the debate, it will be finished before it has begun.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
The extreme complication of all living things lends far more proof of intelligence behind its design than some wayward accident of nature that all this sprang from. Until the wizards of smart duplicate what they claim nature did all on its own, I will stick with intelligence behind life and this magnificent eco-system we call life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atmas 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no sources and Con had far better arguments which Pro never addressed, probably because of the short amount of rounds.