The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Intelligent Design ( Pro ) vs Evolution ( con )

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
oscarclem7 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 98445
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Round one - acceptance only
Round two - Opening arguements (no rebuttals)
Round three and four - Rebuttals
Round Five - Closing statements (no rebuttals)

Whoever accepts has to argue that the evolution of Darwin is superior to Intelligent Design

BOP is shared

Rules :

- No cussing
- No forefeiting
- Unreliable sources result in an automatic victory to the opposing side


I agree to the rules set by the affirmative and accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate.

Firstly, I would like to argue that Intelligent design provides a more rational explanation regarding the origin of life than the theory of evolution. The intelligent design theory has a very concise explanation about the origin of life which is the intervention of a supernatural force. However, The evolutionist has a naturalistic worldview and can not rely on supernatural intervention for an answer. So the evolutionist must submit to abiogenesis or the concept that life came from non-life as an answer. In 1668, the theory of spontaneous generation which proposes that life comes from non-life was disproven and was dissolved among the scientific community due to the efforts of popular scientists like Francesco Redi and Pasteur. However, the concept of spontaneous generation or life coming from non-life has been slightly resurfacing among the scientific community in the early 2000's with the new term of abiogenesis. The theory of abiogenesis is in direct contradiction with the law of biogenesis which states that Life can only come from pre-existing life. The law of biogenesis poses a dilemma for the evolutionist who is ignorant about what created the first life form that started this cycle of life. Evolution can not account for the origin of life since it can not rely on supernatural intervention nor rely upon abiogenesis due to its irrationality and its contradiction with the law of biogenesis. Fortunately, The theory of abiogenesis has been dissolving once again among the scientific community in very recent years due to its contradiction with the law of biogenesis which states that life can ONLY come from life and due its irrational proposal that life can just magically appear from inanimate living things. But what if the law of biogenesis did not exist, could the evolutionist still rely on chance?? No. according to the french mathematician Emile Borel "anything with the probability of 1 in 10^50 will not happen". So if the origin of life was to rely on chance what would be its probability?? Just to get the simplest form of cell that can barely survive, "simplest form of cell to evolve by chance is 1 in 10^119,841, to demonstrate how many zeros that is bring a paper and write 1 then bring thin pieces of paper to write that amount of zeros, you would fill up the entire universe with paper before finishing the number." Both the calculation and the anology to how many zeros were provided by Dr. James Coppedge. Emile Borel comes up with an approximation of 1 in 10^119,000. all in all, intelligent design does a better job at accounting for the origin of life.

Secondly, I would like to argue that the complexity of life is an undeniable fact and I will argue that Intelligent design does a much better job at accounting for the complexity of life. There are so many examples which demonstrate the complexity of life, but for the sake of time, I will only talk about the main 2. First off, the human brain is an extremely complex organ which could not have evolved, in other words , it is irreducibly complex. The brain is indeed the most complex structure in the universe. We each have something approaching 100 billion nerve cells " neurons " in the human brain (more than the number of stars in the Milky Way). Each of them can be connected directly with maybe 10,000 others, totaling some 100 trillion nerve connections. If each neuron of a single human brain were laid end to end they could be wrapped around the Earth twice over. The brain is just too complex to have evolved by chance. Secondly, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions. What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long. If any of those letters did not exist, the whole code fails and our existence fails. The DNA is yet again too complex to have evolved by chance. all in all, Our bodies are just too complex to have evolved the way they are right now. as Sir Fred Hoyle once said to the Nature magazine "The chance that higher life evolved that way is like a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials." Life is just way too complex and too fine -tuned for its surrounding to claim that it just evolved from some bacteria in water.

Moreover, I would like to expose the lie that evolution is backed up with scientific evidence. Firstly, I will establish the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is small changes between species in physical characteristics. For instance, different beak sizes for birds. It should be noted that microevolution does not the theory of evolution in anyway since it establishes variations between the same species and not between different species, the theory of evolution needs support for the latter. However, microevolution like different beak sizes of birds on the Gal"pagos Islands was used by Darwin. I believe that is not proof of evolution since the theory of evolution is variation between different species while microevolution is variation between the same species. I do admit to the fact of microevolution and the variation between the same species which i think is brilliace by God to allow different animals to adapt. However, I do not believe in macroevolution nor in the theory of evolution due to the lack of evidence. In Darwin's book all the evidence used was microevolution and does not show variation with DIFFERENT species. Rather Darwin shows variation within the same species by showing that the same species (birds) had different beak sizes. Secondly, evolutionist point to the fossil record as proof that simpler life evolved into more complex life. Darwin said : "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?". a century later and evolutionist Lyall Watson said : " The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record without any evolution from simpler life is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it""It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record" "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." So since evolution can not be verified that it happened in the past. Lastly, Evolutionists point to similarities among the DNA that we all evolved from each other but couldn't that also be proof of intelligent design as we all have a common creator who gave us similar DNA. all in all there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution except microevolution which does not really support variation between DIFFERENT species.

Bibliography :'s_Theory_and_neo-_Darwinian_Theory_oppose_it
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Says that the use of unreliable sources result in an automatic victory to the opposing side. Uses ICR. Hahaha brilliant XD
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Check my profile. It says deism
Posted by oscarclem7 1 year ago
Moelogy, please explain what your paticular beliefs are around 'intelligent design' and any other relevant beleiefs against conventional science. This is an area of little consensus so in order to hold a proper debate I need to know what you are arguing for. Thankyou in advance.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
What knowledge does intelligent design contribute to our body of knowledge?
Which one ( intelligent design or evolution) does not contradict our background knowledge?
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Please read the resolution WHERE does it say creationism. Intelligent design is different than creationism since intelligent design encompasses deism.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
I believe that Science and reasoning is more valuable than all the religions out there combined
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
reliable means from a highly regarded scientific community
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
I don't trust this one enough to accept. What if Pro doesn't care about truth backed by scientific evidence, and his definition of "superior" is whichever one sounds cooler? What if Pro brands a peer-reviewed study on evolution as "unreliable" and demands an automatic victory? I've been screwed over by creationist nutjobs too many times on this site to fall into this trap again.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.