The Instigator
Scyrone
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
bmurph517
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,291 times Debate No: 668
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (11)

 

Scyrone

Con

The existence and possibility of Intelligent Design is a complicated topic, that throughout history has been debated by many people and important figures. Some arguments extend furthur. They extend to the topic of "Should Intelligent Design also be taught in science class?" I believe it should not. There are many reasons why not including:

A) Intelligent Design is not a Science.

B) Intelligent Design is purely a smokescreen for fanatical Christian and Islamic (or any "Jesus/God-believing" religion for that matter) beliefs to be brought into the American public school system.

C) Intelligent Design has no evidence and cannot be proven scientifically (it requires mere untrusted, unquetioned faith).

D) Evolution is proven fact (we teach facts in schools, not unlikely possibilities).

It is through these statements, working coherently, that I believe that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class in the United States public school system.
bmurph517

Pro

The existence of intelligent design certainly is a complicated topic. Intelligent design basically says that everything was created with an intelligent cause, unlike evolution which says we evolved here from something else.

Intelligent design and evolution can both be argued to not be a science. Rather, both are theories for our existence. When children enter the public school system they should be taught both theories side by side. A good student will exam both arguments and the information presented to decide for his own what he believes.

The reason they are both theories is because IT IS NOT PROVEN - EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. Just because public schools teach it does not mean it is the law of the land (just look at some history books they use now).

Furthermore, your point about intelligent design being a smoke screen for fanatical religion is far from the truth. Intelligent design does not come from the bible. Rather is just says we are just too complicated and intelligent to come from a monkey. No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion.

Intelligent design, unlike evolution, has answers for important questions. Evolution has no answer for how life was started.
If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore?
With the extensiveness of DNA and the perfectness of human beings the way we are, wouldn't something "intelligent" have to design us?
How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life?

With these answers unexplained by evolution maybe that theory should not be indoctrinated in to our student's minds alone. The only reason I can think of why people like you do not want our children taught about other ways of thinking than you own is that you are afraid your theory may look puny and unrealistic to even a young science student.
Debate Round No. 1
Scyrone

Con

Evolution is fact. Here is why I believe so. The majority of people against Evolution say that there are major gaps between the evolving states of animals and humans. This is, for the most part, not true. According to the Scientific Talks Origins Archive transitional fossils have actually been found. Transitional fossils are the link in between the evolved and the previous states of our evolution. Not all have been found. There are still quite a few missing. But these trans-fossils have filled in some of the gaps that we are missing in evolution. And yes, we can prove Evolution scientifically. Natural selection has proved that the weaker will collapse and the stronger will prevail. For example, dogs. They are weaker, they have become the main household pet in most of America. Since they are weaker, we are able to over-power them. We COULD eat them if necessary. Adaptions also occur. For example, how come there are so many different variants of the cat and canine family? Because some have adapted to living as household pets, some have adapted to the wild, some have evolved fur coats to keep them warm in the cold, some have only grown short fur because they live in the hot African wild. These cats and animals adapted from different places from which they first came from. And how do we explain the fossils that we have found of ourselves years ago? According to Science Daily, a girl was found deep in mountains and she looked fairly similiar to a human, but had a slightly more disgured head and was identified to be an incredible amount of years old. Along with all these skeletons we find, and the proof that natural selction, strong over the weak, and adaptions occur, we find that evolution has been proven fact.

You say, "No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion."

Let me ask you this, what are we going to teach schools in the case of Intelligent Design? How will the beginning of our earth be answered? How will we teach things that have no understanding to it? How will we teach Intelligent Design?

"Evolution has no answer for how life was started."

Actually, Evolution has said that life started from tiny organisms that were created from proteins, that were created from the Big bang, or similiar ideologies.

"If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore?"

Because that is not Evolution. When we evolve, so do the offspring the we produce. Monkeys do not have human babies because it is impossible and never happened. Monkeys had monkey babies and humans had human babies.

"perfectness of human beings"

Who said we are perfect? We die, we share similiar traits with many animals, and we can get diseases.

"How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life?"

Because the same that that happened to Earth happened to every other planet in the Universe, thus we are perfect because in our ultimate consortium of dimensions we were successful because we were in the right place, a the right time.

You think Evolution is puny? HA! Let me show you:

1. Who is the Intelligent Designer?

2. How did this Intelligent Designer design us?

3. What state were we in when we were designed?

4. What scientific proof does ID have?

5. What non-scientific proof does ID have?

6. How are we to teach ID?

The argument is ID should be taught in science class: "Intelligent design and evolution can both be argued to not be a science."

7. So you are basically saying it should not be taught in science class, just as I am saying?
bmurph517

Pro

bmurph517 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Scyrone

Con

My arguments and questions still stand. If you cannot answer them, then go ahead and say so, but don't hide away in the dark, frightened of the truth.
bmurph517

Pro

bmurph517 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Scyrone

Con

Fine, don't answer my questions or refute my arguments.

I need 100 letters to finish. Thank you for the debate anyway.
bmurph517

Pro

bmurph517 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Scyrone: "I believe that I have just as much rights as the man who takes my rights away does."

Try: I believe that I have so (as) MANY rights as the man who takes them (rights) away, does.

A right is a distinct entity. Unlike sand or sugar, you may have a few or many, but not much or little.

Since the subject of the sentence is (your rights), there is no need to express it, again, within the same sentence.

Of lesser import - and disputed by some linguists - (SO many/much AS) is superior to (AS many/much AS).

Finally, a comma between (away and does) helps clarify the sequence of wording. Phobic fear of when/not to use a comma has caused teachers to ignore the lowly comma, so I can't fault you for that.
I don;t make it a habit to comment on grammer, but you asked for it.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
"I believe that I have just as much rights as the man who takes my rights away does."
"It irritates me when people don't use proper grammar and puncuation"

Did I not use proper grammar?
I've also never heard of the right to act in stupidity. Stupidity should be a sin.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
BMURPH517: Your profile is very close to mine, and I sympathize with your views on I.D. Also, evolution cannot and does not attempt to explain the begining of time and space (big bang theory).
The reason that I didn't vote for you is that I.D. is logic and not science.
If Scyrone found a pencil on Mars he would rightfully conclude that I.D. was involved. Likewise he would argue forthrightly that evolution could not possibley account for the existence of the pencil, but the human body, well...
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
I'm amused that the following two statements came from the same person (scyrone - profile remarks):
"I believe that I have just as much rights as the man who takes my rights away does."
"It irritates me when people don't use proper grammar and puncuation."
Posted by darwinfish 9 years ago
darwinfish
Anyone who states that evolution is a theory or 'not fact' in the manner as in this debate doesn't know the first thing about evolution of the scientific method. As has been pointed out to some extent already,to be scientific a line of thought has to follow the scientific method. There has to be a testable hypothesis from which conclusions can be drawn. ID in no way, shape, or form presents this sort of question. ID is a purely philosophical and theological question which, while also still being incredibly foolish, is evidently not scientific.

A brief word on evolutionary biology. Technically, evolution is a law. It is an observation that has been made about the natural world, tested and shown to exist. It is fact. The theory behind evolution is natural selection. The theory is the mechanism that allows the law to occur, in short. Theory is not a derogatory term.

There has also been some confusion regarding this preposterous human/monkey baby contention. Human once shared a common ancestor with every creature on this earth. Through divergence and specialization all the species currently in existence were formed. Humans and, most recently, chimpanzees/bonobos shared a common ancestor. This ancestor was neither a chimpanzee or a human, but had similar features to both. At some point, there was a divergence in traits that gave rise to both of the species as different from each other.

In short, Scyrone did a fairly good job of presenting the arguments against intelligent design and for evolution. Bmurph517 should take the time to actually learn the basic facts about evolution before he very sadly attempts to deconstruct it.

This debate was very clearly won by Scyrone.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Everyone please refrain from posting arguments until the debate is over.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
"Also, this debate is about teaching intelligent design to students. Me not having a mastery of the theory of evolution is irrelevant."

This argument has less to do with one's knowledge of the theory of evolution (though it would help) than it does with one's knowledge of the definition of SCIENCE.

Intelligent Design is not scientific. It can't be tested, verified, proven/disproven or substantiated. As such, it doesn't belong in a science classroom alongside other theories (like Evolution) that CAN be proven or disproven. Allowing intelligent design into science classes changes the definition of science so that it's no longer about reasoned thought based on the evidentiary record.

The stupidest thing about this whole debate is that Evolution and Intelligent Design don't even address the same thing, let alone conflict. Evolution only addresses the changes to species over time - it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the origins of the universe or how those species first appeared on Earth.

Furthermore, NOTHING about evolution theory is incompatible with a religious worldview. Many religious people have no problem reconciling the two by believing that God set in motion the process of evolution.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
"With the extensiveness of DNA and the perfectness of human beings the way we are, wouldn't something "intelligent" have to design us?"

Human beings aren't perfect - and that's one of the most compelling sources of evidence for evolution; our DNA is riddled with millions of outdated and unnecessary code markers from our ancestral past. We even have full-on vestigial anatomy like the appendix, coccyx, and the plica semilunaris.

"While I don't disagree with you, you're leaving yourself open by stating Evolution is a proven fact, when it isn't. Evolution is a theory supported by a series of facts, but it can't be proven until we find someone who's been there to observe the entire process."

Evolution, like Gravity, is a theory. The word "theory," however, does not mean that something isn't factual or substantiated by an overwhelming volume of evidence.

The idea that someone has to observe something for it to be fact is ridiculous. There are many forms of evidence beyond direct observation. We convict people of murder every day without anyone actually having observed the crime in question.
Posted by bmurph517 9 years ago
bmurph517
So you're saying some ancient thing had both monkeys and humans? That makes no sense.

Evidence found within the last few years proved that different type of humans lived at the same time. So you would say that some species were having humans and others weren't?

Also, this debate is about teaching intelligent design to students. Me not having a mastery of the theory of evolution is irrelevant.

The questions I posed were to show that students should be taught both arguments so they have a basic understanding of both. Intelligent design and evolution both of many supporters.

If you would like to debate someone on the validity of evolution you should check on the main page. Thank you.
Posted by giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
I feel compelled to respond to some of your points.

"Intelligent design, unlike evolution, has answers for important questions. Evolution has no answer for how life was started."

Buzz...wrong. Some basic reading on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore?"
Monkeys never had humans and babies; monkeys and humans both evolved from a common ancestor which went extinct. And it took several million years.

"With the extensiveness of DNA and the perfectness of human beings the way we are, wouldn't something "intelligent" have to design us?"

Not necessarily. A lot can happen in 200 million years.

"How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life?"

Because the chances are actually extremely low that a given planet will have the necessary qualifications to support life. But why limit it to the solar system? Why not, say, the universe? Because the chances that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe are extremely high.

In short, you clearly have only a basic understanding of the theory of evolution.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Scyronebmurph517Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Ethereal 9 years ago
Ethereal
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by darwinfish 9 years ago
darwinfish
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Scyronebmurph517Tied
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