The Instigator
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
ToastOfDestiny
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative theory to Evolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,195 times Debate No: 7939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (16)

 

MTGandP

Pro

========
Introduction
========
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not the only theory out there to explain the diversity of life. Intelligent Design is a viable alternative.

Definitions

Theory of Intelligent Design: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (intelligentdesign.org)

Evolution: "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms..." (talkorigins.org, as cited from Oxford Concise Science Dictionary)

========
Contention 1: Education is Public
========
A 2005 poll by Harris Interactive showed that 54% of U.S. adults "do not think human beings developed from an earlier species." Intelligent Design is therefore the theory that represents the viewpoint of the majority of the United States. Education is public and tax-funded, and these same people who agree with Intelligent Design are sending their children to public schools. These schools should thus teach what the parents want their children to learn. As Intelligent Design supporters make up the majority of the population, it is only reasonable to require that Intelligent Design be taught as an alternative theory to Evolution.

========
Contention 2: Scientists Support Intelligent Design
========
Answers in Genesis has a list of over 300 scientists in support of Intelligent Design. This gives scientific credibility to the theory of Intelligent Design. I see this contention as not as significant as the other two; however, it is still a point worth making. Intelligent Design has not only the majority on its side, but it has the scientific majority on its side.

========
Contention 3: The Science Does Not Support Evolution
========
3a. Evolution has never been observed. Science cannot function without empirical evidence, and we have never gathered any such evidence for evolution.

3b. During the Cambrian Explosion, a huge number of species appeared within a very short time span. This event is unexplained by Evolutionists.

3c. The earth is not old enough for evolution to be a sound explanation for the diversity of life. Bacterial life, much less animal life, is unimaginably complicated. There is no way in which life could have developed so quickly.

3d. Evolution denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out." (secondlaw.com) But this is conflicting with the theory of Evolution, which states that life grew more complicated over time. Given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increasing complication over such a long period of time is not possible.

3e. New information cannot arise through genetic mutations.

3f. Ignoring point 3e, Evolution is not adequate to explain the sheer complexity of life. The probability of complex life arising by chance is so low that it is zero for all practical purposes. We can thus infer that life did not arise by chance.

3 Conclusion. There is inadequate evidence supporting Evolution. However, each of the flaws in Evolution can be explained by the inclusion of an intelligent designer. Therefore, Intelligent Design is a valid theory to explain the diversity of life, and should be taught at least alongside Evolution.

=======
Conclusion
=======
Intelligent Design is the most widely accepted theory, and has the evidence on its side. We go to school to learn, so it is important that schools teach Intelligent Design.

Resources

1. "Intelligent Design." Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design. 22 Apr. 2009 <http://www.intelligentdesign.org...;.
2. "What is Evolution?" TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. 22 Apr. 2009 <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.
3. "Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God." Harris Interactive. Harris Interactive. 22 Apr. 2009 <http://www.harrisinteractive.com...;.
4. "Creation scientists and other biographies of interest." Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. 22 Apr. 2009 <http://www.answersingenesis.org...;.
5. "(2)." The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 22 Apr. 2009 <http://www.secondlaw.com...;.
ToastOfDestiny

Con

I would like to thank MTGandP for what will be an interesting debate. I have created a thread where I will post my sources. (e) indicates there is evidence for this claim in the thread. I invite Pro to post evidence there too. http://www.debate.org...

Abbreviations:
ID=Intelligent Design
CE=Cambrian Explosion

I will take the resolution to be:
"Resolved: ID should be taught at least alongside Evolution in Public Schools."

Question: How do we teach ID?

Foreword:
Evolution does not describe how life arose. It is not meant to. Other theories do, this does not. If you see the definition Pro provides, it NEVER mentions the origin of life as being a necessary part of evolution. Evolution describes how life became more complex. It's like asking a physicist to paint the Mona Lisa - not his job. Discard all of Pro's arguments dealing with the origin of life.

-CON CASE-
A lot of arguments that can be made for my case are in my rebuttals against Pro's Contention Three. Each rebuttal is more proof for Evolution.

Contention One: Public Schools Ought to Only Teach Science in Science Classes
My only contention is that what should be taught in public schools (at least in relation to biology, in this case) should be science. We cannot demand schools to teach a curriculum that is not a science - and thus any idea which is not scientific cannot make its way into the classroom. Just like we cannot tell English teachers to teach improper comma usage, and we cannot demand History teachers to tell their students that time-traveling aliens kidnapped Elvis, all we can make Science teachers in public schools teach is what is science.

A) Intelligent Design is not Science (e)
-For an idea to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable. There is no way to 'disprove' the designer, as he/she/it is not directly observable. In addition, looking at the purported 'designed' world, there can be no observation that can be agreed to disprove the designer (any observation that one says disproves the designer, such as incomplete organs, can be attributed to the designer).
B) Evolution is Falsifiable (e)
The following could disprove evolution
-A static, unchanging fossil record
-True chimeras - organisms with combined body parts, like minotaurs or mermaids. Only real.
-Something that stops mutations from occurring.
-Observations of an organism being created.

-PRO CASE-
"Contention 1: Education is Public" (e)
-Yes, public schools are indeed public. However, the statistics presented by Pro are from 2005, 4 years ago. The opinion has shifted. 2007 polling by Gallup shows that 49% of the polled believe in evolution, while only 48% disagree with it. Adults with a postgrad degree had an acceptance rate of 74%.
-While education is public funded, public opinion does not determine what is correct. To say "the public believes it, ergo it is true" is no argument at all. Public consensus does not determine what is true.

"Contention 2: Scientists Support Intelligent Design" (e)
-This information taken from the census bureau shows that there were 258,491 life scientists, those who study biology, hired by the public in the US. So, even if there were 350 scientists in support of ID, and ALL of them were in life science, that puts about .135% of life scientists in favor of ID. This 'majority' which Pro speaks of does not exist. In fact, the facts go almost as far in the other direction as possible. 99.865% of life scientists (if not more - the industry will have grown in the past three years) do not support ID. Scientific consensus is not for it, not by a long shot.

In those two contentions, not only does Pro make false assertions, but we see that all his arguments go Con.

"Contention 3: The Science Does Not Support Evolution"
3a.
-One word: superbugs. The emergence of drug-resistant bacteria is clear evidence for evolution. Furthermore, insects and other animals become resistant to pesticides that we use. This is evolution empirically observed. I have included more evidence in the thread. Fossil records and homologous structures are evidence for evolution.
-ID has never been observed. Science cannot function without empirical evidence, and we have never gathered such evidence, in my knowledge, of ID. (Pro's argument turned against him).

3b. (e)
-Aah, the Cambrian Explosion argument. What my opponent is talking about here is the emergence of a large number of animals in the fossil record during the Cambrian period. Let it be noted that by using the CE argument, my opponent concedes the reliability of the fossil record (which is very strong evidence for evolution).
-What we see in the CE is not an explosion in the diversity of life, but more of an explosion in hard-bodied life. Soft bodies and body parts do not fossilize well. Bones and exoskeletons do - so what we see here is a shift in great part to hard body parts.
-There is evidence for a mass extinction before the Cambrian. Such an event would clear many roles in the environment. Any organisms that remained would then undergo adaptive radiation, or multiple different mutation paths, and diverge into different species to fill these new niches.
-Furthermore, there is increasing evidence for bacteria life from about 1250 million years ago. The existence of such life makes it easier for fast speciation to occur.
-Such an event is evidence against ID. Life existed before the CE. We have two possibilities - the designer created such life, thus the CE would represent it creating life again. The other possibility is that the CE was the first design, but then prior life would not be designed, and science trumps ID. The CE is explained by evolution, but not by ID.

3c.
The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Why is this not enough? How long does life take to form? The fossil record shows that life has become more and more complex. We have advanced from Stromatolites (which are built by microbe communities) to humans in not too much more than 1.25 billion years. Why isn't evolution adequate to explain this diversity if we can see it unfolding?

3d.
I would encourage everybody to read the entire webpage at secondlaw.com. My opponent leaves out a major part of this, dealing with the word 'tends' and how life 'violates' entropy. To quote "Its tendency is never eliminated but, fortunately for us, there are a huge number of compounds in which it is blocked for our lifetimes and even far longer." If we follow my opponent's argument, I should not be able to stack building blocks together, or cook, as things get more complex as I do so. What allows things to get more complex is an outside source of energy which gets less complex and diffuses. In our case, the sun provides the energy required to violate entropy on our planet. Entropy (which is the 2nd law) is upheld on the whole in our solar system.

3e.
-Can I get any evidence, any at all for this?
-What about bacteria which mutate to become resistant to antibiotics?

3f.
-The probability of complex life being the FIRST thing on the planet is extremely low. Simple life emerging is different.
-Again, evolution does not need to explain the origin of life, just its diversity based on Pro's definition.
-How do you arrive at this probability? How low is it?

None of these arguments go against evolution, many have . Pro never cites specific evidence for ID. I challenge Pro to make a case for ID.

In conclusion:
-Evolution doesn't need to describe life's origin, only its complexity. There is plentiful evidence for it.
-ID is not science, and should not be taught. Pro defeats himself by requiring empirical evidence for science, which we don't have for ID. He never explains how his arguments which 'disprove' evolution are for ID.
-Public/Scientific opinion is against ID.
-All Pro arguments against evolution hold no weight. Many arguments are factually incorrect or have no evidence behind them.
Debate Round No. 1
MTGandP

Pro

"I have created a thread where I will post my sources... I invite Pro to post evidence there too."
I will do so.

"Discard all of Pro's arguments dealing with the origin of life."
I do not believe I have any arguments referring to the origin of life. I have avoided using them because I want to debate about evolution, not the origin of life. I agree that if I make an argument about the origin of life, it should be discarded.

{blockquote}Contention One: Public Schools Ought to Only Teach Science in Science Classes{/blockquote}
My opponent makes an interesting and amusing use of examples. However, no one seriously believes that time-traveling aliens kidnapped Elvis. See my first contention, "Education is Public."

{blockquote}ID is not falsifiable.{/blockquote}
We cannot directly prove it false, but we can show that it is very unlikely. If evolutionary theory is shown to have no holes, then it is unlikely that an IDer created modern life because an IDer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life.

My opponent responds to my first contention with two counter-arguments. The first states that the poll results are outdated. I agree that the Gallup poll is more up to date. However, since such a significant portion of the population still believe in ID, it should be taught as an alternative theory, and not neglected simply because it has 1% less support than evolution.

My opponent also argues that public opinion does not determine what is correct. I am not arguing that it does. I am arguing that since schools are publicly funded, we should teach what parents want their kids to learn, which is ID nearly half the time. In this case it is not about teaching the truth; instead, it is about pleasing the taxpayers. So to be fair to the taxpayers, both ID and evolution should be taught.

My opponent responds to my second contention using data from the consensus. My opponent is correct, and I was well aware that I was using manipulative tactics. The voter should remember that in my previous post, I stated that this contention was not very important.

3a. This is microevolution, taking place over a short period of time. Macroevolution, however, has never been observed.
3a (2). But we do have evidence for ID. There are elements of the universe that mirror elements that have been designed by humans. For example, DNA resembles computer code.

3b. My opponent explains what happened during the CE, but does not refute my point that life evolved too rapidly within a short timespan.
-My opponent offers two scenarios for how ID could explain the CE. There is no reason why an IDer would only create life one time; both of my opponent's explanations involving ID are valid. In the second one, both abiogenesis and ID are involved, so both should be taught.

3c. Many proteins in a modern animal's body contain hundreds of amino acids. Even with evolution over billions of years, the probability of each one of the thousands of proteins arising is very low. The human body has around 26,000 different proteins, and each contains many amino acids. The number of possible protein combinations is immense, and the probability of getting it right is incredibly low, even given billions of years.

3d. In order for living things to be able to get energy from the sun, they must have some form of photosynthesis. But there is no way in which photosynthesis could develop without already having energy to develop it with. There is therefore no way in which photosynthesis could evolve.

3e. Information not rising is simpler than information rising, so you have the burden of proof.
-Bacterial mutations do not necessarily create new information. They only modify or rearrange existing information.

3f. This argument was not intended to deal with the origin of life. Instead, it was intended to deal with the probability of complex life evolving from very simple life.
-I was guessing, based on the arrangement of molecules in the body. I didn't do any elaborate calculations.

Case for ID:
My case for ID is a case against evolution. ID is currently the only alternative to evolution with any real support. ID can explain what evolution cannot. When a point of evolution is shown to be an inadequate explanation, ID can offer a valid explanation.
ToastOfDestiny

Con

"I do not believe I have any arguments referring to the origin of life..."
I took your 3f talking as an attack on evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life - my bad.

"My opponent makes an interesting and amusing use of examples"
My point here is that we cannot expect public schools to teach to their students improperly. Admittedly, the Elvis analogy was me having fun, but we seriously cannot ask teachers to misteach students. My point is that what must be taught is what is 'true'. In science 'truth' is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence for it. The theory of evolution is called 'theory' because in science this means that the evidence amassed in favor of the idea that we are just about as sure as we can get.

"We cannot directly prove [ID] false, but we can show that it is very unlikely.."
And there you have it. ID cannot be falsified. Both sides agree on this. ID is therefore not a science. Pro then says if evolution can be shown to have no holes in it, ID is unnecessary. Pro cannot show any true holes in evolution. Pro then says ID can be shown to be very unlikely. Unfortunately for Pro, fairies and unicorns cannot be proven false, just unlikely to exist. The moment Pro concedes that ID is not falsifiable, I am winning this debate on the basis that ID is not a science. This is a key issue!

"My opponent also argues that public opinion does not determine what is correct..."
-Here Pro tells us that public schools need to teach what parents want their kids to learn. If my parents didn't want me to learn calculus, to find out about ionic bonds, or to discover what triggered WWI, then they should not send me to a public school. Public schools must teach fact.
-Furthermore, how do we decide how to teach ID? Do we simply state "a designer did it?". Should we go with Christianity? Judaism? Islam? The 48% that may have supported ID in 2007, I doubt that they were all unified in what they wanted their kids to learn. Do different school districts teach different curricula based on their population diversity?

"In this case it is not about teaching the truth..."
-Here's the killer. Pro's asking us to LIE to schoolchildren. To put truth in the back seat. As long as their parents are happy, who cares what the kids know, right? Wrong! The purpose of the public school system is to educate the public. This goal is defeated if we lie to kids in the classroom. I repeat that what should be taught in public schools is fact, or in the case of science, theory.

"My opponent is correct, and I was well aware that I was using manipulative tactics..."
So Pro concedes to using false data/manipulative tactics and then expects you to forgive this because he stated it wasn't important. Don't let him off so easy for violating debate ethics! I say that this contention is very important, more than his 1st. When nearly 100% of the scientific community accepts a theory due to the evidence behind it, that's something.

3a.
-Macroevolution takes place over a longer period of time than evolution has been highly accepted. Over the 100-ish years we have postulated evolution, only bacteria could seriously macroevolve. Here's an example: http://www.pnas.org.... In 1988, scientists grew of E. Coli in an environment which contains citrate. Citrate cannot normally be digested by E. oli, but in 2008, some bacteria displayed the ability to do so. This is not only macroevolution, but the emergence of new genetic information through mutation!
-Here's another key point. Pro has conceded that microevolution occurs. What's the difference between macro and micro? Microevolution over time leads to macroevolution! By accepting microevolution, we accept macroevolution.

3a (2). Pro says DNA resembles human computer programming. The assertion here is that the universe mirrors human creations. It is actually the opposite. We often look to nature to come up with new technology.

Major point: my opponent says that we need empirical observations, which I provide for evolution. We have no empirical observation for ID. Pro provides no empirical observation of ID occurring. Pro completely concedes this argument!

3b. I totally explain this 'rapid evolution'. First, we have reason to believe that animal life existed pre-CE. That makes it easier for an 'explosion' to occur. Second, there is evidence for a mass extinction. In such a case, a lot of roles in the environment would be empty. Remaining creatures would evolve to fill in all these roles. Because so many roles were empty, evolution took place in many ways. Furthermore, my source asserts that the adaptive radiation in the Cambrian was no faster than at any other time.
-In either example I provided, evolution takes place. My point is that a designer repeatedly designing life is ludicrous. If this is the case, where is ID today? If there was only one initial design, evolution explains the complexity of life today. Unless ID was constantly taking place, evolution again explains complexity.

3c.
What is the probability in Archaebacteria? It is agreed that this domain of life most resembles ancient bacteria. What is the probability of bacteria simpler than Archaea arising? Again, how do you get this probability?

3d.
Photosynthesis is not necessary. Cold-blooded animals get energy from the sun. For entropy to be violated, energy does not need to be processed into glucose, as plants do, it just needs to be flowing into the system. When I bake cake, it is not performing photosynthesis, but becoming more complex.

3e.
-I have the burden of proof? You make the claim "information has never arisen" so you need proof for that. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
-The E. coli which process citrates are an example of new genetic information. Malaria becoming resistant to cholroquine requires them to make new proteins. Polyploidy and duplication lead to new genetic material.

3f.
-This argument is Pro's guesswork and should be discarded. Again, what about the most primitive of life?

"Case for ID"
Unfortunately, Pro cannot provide evidence against evolution which I have not debunked.

In short:
-Pro advocates teaching lies is school, as long as taxpayers are happy.
-Pro concedes ID is not science, and never gives empirical evidence of it being observed.
-Pro deliberately tries to mislead you.
-Scientists agree that evolution is as true as science can be.
-Macroevolution=microevolution over time. Pro concedes micro, and therefore macro.
-Pro doesn't show that information cannot arise from mutation. E. coli have been shown to undergo macroevolution, and develop new info through mutation.
-I have explained the CE.
-Pro bases arguments from complexity on humans, and does not provide statistics.
-Photosynthesis is not necessary to get energy from the sun. Think cold-blooded animals.
Debate Round No. 2
MTGandP

Pro

"Pro then says if evolution can be shown to have no holes in it, ID is unnecessary. Pro cannot show any true holes in evolution. Pro then says ID can be shown to be very unlikely. "

"Unfortunately for Pro, fairies and unicorns cannot be proven false, just unlikely to exist. The moment Pro concedes that ID is not falsifiable, I am winning this debate on the basis that ID is not a science."

These two statements seem contradictory. I offered a way in which ID is falsifiable at least in practice, and my opponent accepts it in the upper quote. But in the second quote, my opponent discards this and says that ID is not falsifiable. I maintain that, while ID is not absolutely falsifiable, it is falsifiable in practice.

"If my parents didn't want me to learn calculus, to find out about ionic bonds, or to discover what triggered WWI, then they should not send me to a public school."
This is true. Unfortunately, whether or not a parent is sending his or her child to public school, that parent still must pay taxes to pay for public schools. The public school system should not be paid for by people who disagree with what it teaches.

"[H]ow do we decide how to teach ID?"
This is a good question. However, the resolution does not ask how ID should be taught, and instead only asks whether it should be taught. So this point is irrelevant.

"The purpose of the public school system is to educate the public. This goal is defeated if we lie to kids in the classroom."
For the sake of argument, I will assume that ID is "a lie".
Education does not imply truth. The definition of "education" by the Princeton dictionary is "the activities of educating or instructing; activities that impart knowledge or skill." This makes no mention of truth. The goal of education is not to teach the truth, but is instead to teach knowledge and skills that will be important in future careers. There are many people in the world who believe evolution and many who believe ID, so it is important that schools teach both theories.

"When nearly 100% of the scientific community accepts a theory due to the evidence behind it, that's something."
No, I do not expect forgiveness for my manipulative intent. I realized that you had caught me, and I may as well admit it and not dig myself into a deeper hole. And yes, it is significant when so many scientists support something, but it is not proof, and my other two contentions take priority over this one.

"Here's an example: http://www.pnas.org....... In 1988, scientists grew of E. Coli in an environment which contains citrate. Citrate cannot normally be digested by E. oli, but in 2008, some bacteria displayed the ability to do so. This is not only macroevolution, but the emergence of new genetic information through mutation!"
-This does not necessarily imply an increase in information. It is likely that the genetic information was already there, but it was not active. A modification of genetic information allowed for the adaption. This is possible, considering how much DNA bacteria have today.
-The difference is that there are some big jumps which cannot be explained as a series of little jumps. See the blood clotting cascade. Another example that I have never seen cited but nonetheless baffles me is the cell wall.

3c. Do you mean the probability of them arising in the 3.5 billion years that they have been evolving? Significantly higher, considering how simple they are. It is possible that archaea have had ample time to evolve.

3d. Cold-blooded animals is a good example. But they still need to get energy from other sources; they cannot just get energy from heat, but must eat as well.

3e. I didn't phrase it exactly like that. Still, I phrased it badly, since I cannot prove that information has never arisen. Let me say that until we see information arise, it is safer to assume that it probably cannot, since a lack of something is simpler than something.

3f. It was guesswork, but that does not mean it was wrong. I have recently written a program designed to simulate evolution. Nothing evolved properly, though this may be attributed to a bad program. Still, it led me to design some formulae for the rate of evolution.

An organism contains x bits of information in its genetics. The probability of a given bit mutating is n. The population of the organism is p. Assume that every generation, half the organisms reproduce and half die. This is a reasonable reproduction rate for single-celled organisms.

After one generation, on average x*n mutations per organism will have occurred. Half of these will provide an advantage and half will provide a disadvantage. Due to the competition factor, the disadvantaged organisms will on average die after log2(p/(x*n)) years. The #1 most advantaged organism will on average take over after log2(p) years, assuming it does not die first due to the unpredictability of environmental factors. So a little less than every log2(p) generations, the majority of the population will be as good as the original most advantaged organism. Assuming the population is stagnant, this is a linear rate of evolution. Assuming an increasing population size, this means the evolution rate is actually slowing. If g = 3.5 billion and p = 2^60 (a reasonable-ish number for bacteria, and easy to work with), there will have been 3.5 billion / 50 = 7 million mutated bits. DNA contains hundreds of millions or billions of base pairs, and if we take each base pair to be a bit of information, then at best only about one fortieth of all DNA could have mutated over the last 3.5 billion years. This is inadequate to explain the modern diversity of life; it is not even enough to explain the 96% difference between humans and chimpanzees.

I have now mathematically proved that evolution is not adequate to explain the extreme diversity of life. Mathematics, unlike science, is universal. Science is frequently backed up by math, but evolution is not. The math is against evolution.

Conclusions:
I hope that you will not hold it against me that I knowingly used manipulative tactics. The rest of my arguments should stand on their own.

No matter what, adults must pay taxes to support public education. It is immoral to force someone to pay for something that he or she does not believe in. Failing to teach ID in schools is not justified.

I ask the judges to support 48% of American citizens, to support our education and our rights, and to vote PRO.
ToastOfDestiny

Con

I would like to thank MTGandP for giving me a fun way to spend this weekend =). Remember readers, check the evidence thread!

"These two statements seem contradictory..."
These statements are far from contradictory. In the first quote, I say that ID can be proven to be unlikely (not falsifiable), which I do. In the second, I say that ID is not falsifiable. There is a difference between being unlikely and being falsifiable. Pro concedes that ID is not absolutely falsifiable. Again, unicorns are not absolutely falsifiable.

"The public school system should not be paid for..."
Here we have a problem. Public schooling is a service extended by the government and is supported by taxes. If people who disagree with government programming don't pay for it, government programming would collapse. If people who didn't agree with public schools didn't pay for them, there would be no public schools (not just people who disagree with evolution). Then, provided we teach ID, what happens to the evolutionists who disagree? Do they start not paying? Public schooling is in for a tough ride no matter what. Such a 'solution' defeats itself in any scenario.

"the resolution does not ask how..."
This is a definite problem associated with teaching ID and is therefore relevant. Teaching ID will not please all 48% of ID supporters, as they are divided amongst their ideologies. Teaching ID will still leave taxpayers unhappy. While this argument does not attack ID based on its merit, it attacks teaching ID based on its results. I'd say that's fair game.

"The goal of education is...to teach knowledge and skills that will be important in future careers."
Is teaching improper science important to future careers? Just as we expect English teachers to produce students who are skilled grammatically, science teachers must produce scientifically skilled students. We cannot teach students that scientific theory must be falsifiable and then teach them non-falsifiable ideas. I'm not stating that ID is a lie, just that Pro advocates discarding the truth, ergo teaching lies as long as taxpayers are happy.

"it is significant when so many scientists support something..."
Pro concedes that this is significant. Scientists' support definitely gives you a better idea of a theory's integrity than the support of the people. Why? Scientists are more versed in the ideas out there.

"It is likely that the genetic information was already there..."
-This case involves bacteria creating a protein which their previous genetic information could not produce without more nucleotides. Increase in information occurred. In any case, polyploidy and duplication increase the amount of information. Furthermore, much of the human genome has been attributed to viruses entering our DNA and remaining there, dormant (e). This is another way new genetic material can arise in organisms.

"This is possible, considering how much DNA bacteria have today..."
Aha! Pro implies that the amount of DNA bacteria have today is larger than before! He seems to say that because bacteria have more DNA than they used to, the E. coli modification was simply a change in information. However, if this is the case, their genetic material has grown. Pro concedes increase in genetic material.

"there are some big jumps..."
-The blood clotting cascade can actually be explained quite easily (e). Basically, there are many different triggers which trigger other triggers, eventually leading up to blood clotting (lobsters have a simple system which reacts directly to trauma). The system likely evolved in an animal with a primitive circulatory system. The two proteins which cause clotting were already in existence, as well as white blood cells which can plug leaks. When cells break under trauma, they spill all sorts of molecules, some of which prevent smooth muscle movement, aiding blood clotting. From this simple system it is easy to imagine additional triggers joining the crew. What's the advantage to these triggers? Each can trip over 20 triggers in the next step. So each additional level of triggers amplifies the speed of clotting. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually added another trigger to the cascade.
-The cell wall likely began as a simple membrane, which became more and more complex, leading to today's marvel.

3c
I mean the probability of something simpler than today's Archea developing into more complex life forms. Anyway, in terms of protein production, many different nucleotide bases code for the same protein - for example 6 of the 64 possible RNA codons code for Leucine, another 6 for Arginine, 4 each for Serine, Proline, Threonine and Alanine. Getting an amino acid out of DNA is easier than Pro makes it to be.

3d
This only furthers my point. When animals eat and digest food, they break it down, making it less complex and giving themselves energy. This energy can be used to violate entropy. The point is that the Sun's heat provides the Earth with the energy needed to violate entropy.

3e
Like I stated, we have seen new information arise in the case of E. coli, and also in viruses entering organisms.

3f
While I seriously admire Pro's ability to program, it is doesn't defeat evolution. In larger populations, there are more and more individuals available to 'try' mutations. Evolution may slow down for the simple reason that the organism is very well adapted to the environment. If there is no pressure in terms of predators or climate change, few changes will 'stick' as they will not provide an advantage. The coelacanth hasn't changed much because it doesn't need to. The octopus remains fairly unchanged as well. Evolution does not always occur linearly as well. In 3.5 billion years, you will have large, unexpected mutations. In humans, every genetic disorder that we see is the human race 'trying' out a new genetic code. The difference between humans and chimpanzees is about 4%. We have a 96% similarity.

"It is immoral to force someone to pay for something that he or she does not believe in..."
Which Pro ends up doing by teaching ID. As stated, this is self-defeating.

Summary
1) Intelligent Design is not a Science
-In his first speech pro says "Evolution has never been observed. Science cannot function without empirical evidence, and we have never gathered any such evidence for evolution." Not only is this claim incorrect, I cite London's underground mosquitoes and the E. coli, but I responded in my first speech that ID has never been observed/has no empirical evidence. Pro drops this in Round 2, where I bring it up again. Again, Pro drops it!
-Pro also admits that ID is not falsifiable, but can be shown to be very unlikely. I have shown that it is very unlikely ID has occurred by defeating my opponent' arguments against evolution.

2) Pro Drops/Concedes:
-Empirical Observations of ID
-The Cambrian Explosion Argument (which means I successfully debunked this)
-His assertion that nature represents human design (we can therefore agree it's the other way around)
-Genetic information has never arisen (strongly implied)

3) Teaching Ought to be Proper
-If teaching is about endowing kids with the proper skills for future jobs, teaching them to be bad scientists is hardly what we want to do. In all other subjects we teach 'properly' and yet we are supposed to discard it in science? Pro's solution ends up defeating public education.

4) Public/Scientific Opinion
-Public opinion does not determine what should be taught - facts do. Scientific majority gives credibility to the theory. Supporters of ID are split into groups with different beliefs.

The resolution is negated because ID is not a science, scientific consensus and evidence is for evolution, and teaching ID will not satisfy 48% of the population. Our right is for children to be properly educated, and teaching ID does not fulfill this requirement. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
"I have no problem with you voting. Go for it (as long as it isn't a +7)!"
Okay. I'm giving arguments to myself and conduct to Toast.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I have no problem with you voting. Go for it (as long as it isn't a +7)!
Posted by leet4A1 8 years ago
leet4A1
"I keep having this internal debate between voting for myself because I want to win, and voting for Toast because he deserves to win. What should I do?"

I suppose the healthy medium is not to vote. I respect your honesty.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
I keep having this internal debate between voting for myself because I want to win, and voting for Toast because he deserves to win. What should I do?
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I admire you for debating a side you don't necessarily agree with.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
In that case ID isn't being taught as an alternative to evolution though.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
"I'm not sure how the CON side is losing...no offense to Pro."

None taken. I'm surprised that I'm doing this well.

Lol @ Rob1Billion. I should have made that point. XD
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Only 5 votes and the scores are already this high...either one side made some atrocious mistake or people are playing defense with their points.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
I dont see who could have possibly voted for pro...
Posted by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
I'm not sure how the CON side is losing...no offense to Pro.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:50 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 8 years ago
pazmusik
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
MTGandPToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07