Debate Rounds (5)
RULES: This will be a Formal Debate with Formal Debate Rules and the Rules of this site, with this one exception. The Opponent shall go first and shall contribute to the actual definitions used in conjunction with the proponent. The winner shall be the person whom the majority of people being persuaded, either for or against. (I ask that those whom want to judge keep an open mind before casting their votes.)
The rounds will be:
Round 1 Opening Round where the opponents greet each other and form the necessary agreements about terms. This will be open for two hours.
Round two will consist of the Con presenting the case against, while the Pro presents the proponents perspective. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
Round three will consist of alternative arguments both con and pro. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
Round three will be used to dissect the opposition's arguments in a rational and logical manner. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
Round four will be for varied questions with the opponents giving arguments directly addressing the question. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
Round 5 will be for closing arguments from both factions in which the opposition can attempt to discredit by any means necessary. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
First things first, therminology.
Intelligent Design: The idea that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
is that a good definition for intelligent design?
Resolved: A Scientist can give a rational argument as to Intelligent Design that the majority of other scientists can and should agree with, regardless of religious beliefs.
The Burden of Proof is on me, since I make the claim, as to whether a Scientist can and should properly make the correct argument as to Intelligent Design having any useful purpose in Science. I accept my friends definition of ID, and wholeheartedly agree with the definition.
I thank my friend for accepting this debate, and thank those who want to read through it for voting and reading. This is my first debate on this website, and I hope I can convince people of this important topic, and how it is best used outside of Religious Dogma. Thank you all for taking the time, and having the patients for this debate.
There are many historical figures that accepted the premise of an Entity, greater than ourselves, created the Universe, and designed everything within it. My opponent rightfully gives the definition of Intelligent Design as "Intelligent Design: The idea that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity." Our historical figures, especially in Philosophy and Science, have agreed with this concept for many millennia. Even to the point that whole civilizations were planned around this idea. For a fact, Plato himself acknowledged this. ( http://plato.stanford.edu... ) There are also numerous other Historical Figures that acknowledged that life, or the Universe must have been created as the laws of chance tell us that it"s a mathematical impossibility for the existences to have been spontaneous.
Intelligent Design is not a new concept, nor is it something that should be randomly dismissed. If we are to study the History of Science, we must accept that our ancestors were some kind of Creationists, in one form or another. While there has been considerable disagreement between zealots on both sides, because there truly is no middle ground on this issue, about the nature of creation, we can all agree that Science has, until more recently, always looked at the design to show how great the Designer is. From the Great Pharaohs and before, people have consistently acknowledged that we are not intelligent enough, and most likely never will be, to design a whole universe, at least in terms that we presently understand creation. And by rights, even if we could design a whole universe, we would become the Creators ourselves.
Appearances Can Be Deceptive
While we are discussing Intelligent Design, we should also note that scientific interpretations can be biased based on Belief Systems. For example, some famous Atheists have come to astounding revelations about the nature of the Universe. They claim that a "Big Bang" created the Universe by chance, ignoring any and all other possibilities, based on nothing more than their personal belief systems. (Steven Hawking being among these people.) They claim that substances and energy were created through that known event without any outside influences. This takes more faith to believe than Intelligent Design, however.
In his book, Steven Hawking discusses why there are two sets of Laws. Known Laws, or Laws of Nature, and Laws of Man"s Intelligences. The Laws of Nature cannot be changed (manipulated, yes, but never changed). The Laws of Man"s Intelligences are subject to change, depending on the subject. Hawking even admits that he doesn"t have all the answers, as do Creationists.
So, since we know that appearances can be deceptive, we must understand that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. (Laws of Thermodynamics http://www.ask.com... ). Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did this Universe form?
There are three possibilities.
First: Energy was first designed by an Atemporal Being
Second: Random Chance Happenstance
Third: A multiversal explosion happened in another dimension. However, this leads to the same conclusion as the first two arguments.
While its evident that we are here, the main arguments are either through chance and happenstance, or through something designing us. These are the only two viable options to choose from, if you are going to be serious about the discussion. We can and should challenge either of these ideas, because that is how rational and intelligent people behave. We should never take things at face value and determine that chance and happenstance created something so perfect and lasting as this universe, especially when the evidence of Design is so broad and telling.
This concludes my part in round two. I readily await my opponent and friends reply.
Yes there was. However this irrelavent. There were many historical figures that thought the earth was flat, or suspended in water, or were Alchemists. They simply didn't have the technology and knowledge we have today. Science has agreed to this for a millennia but at one point science agreed the earth was flat until we found out it wasn't. That what science is, we follow where the evidence leads.
"Intelligent Design is not a new concept, nor is it something that should be randomly dismissed."
It should definitly be randomly dismissed since it is NOT science. Intelligent Design is not a theory because it cannot be scientifically studied.
"If we are to study the History of Science, we must accept that our ancestors were some kind of Creationalists..." And our ancestors were also Alechmists, but once we abondoned that pretty fast since we realized it didn't fit in with science.
"While we are discussing Intelligent Design, we would also note that scientific interpretations can be biased based on Belief Systems. For example, some famous Atheists have come to astouding revelations about the nature of the Universe. They claim that a "Big Bang" created the Universe by chance, ignoring any and all other possibilities, based on nothing more than their personal belief systems. They claim that substances and energy were created through that known event without any outside influences. This takes more faith to believe than Intelligent Design, however..."
Wrong. Science doesn't work like that. They don't dismiss dismiss all other possibilities because of their Atheisim, they dismiss them because they lack evidence for them. Scientists do not clam that energy was made through the Big Bang. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that: "Matter cannot be created nor destoryed." So we know, that matter and energy have been eternal. Think of it like this, you go to the store and buy a box of cookies and on the box it says "0 Calories." If you eat one cookie, this will be true. However, if the more you eat, the more you accumilate calories. Nothing is not exactly nothing and cannot be nothing forever. It takes a hell of a lot less faith since it can be proven, Miller/Urey proved something can come from nothing in their experiment, than to say an all-being, all-powerful entity exists that never dies or has to be born and exists outside of our laws of nature and created everything in the Universe.
"Hawking even admits that he doesn't have all the answers, as do Creationists." Steven Hawking doesn't need to have all the answers, he knows the Big Bang happened, the evidence is overwhelming and therefore, he's waiting for a scientist or scientists to perform experiements and figure out what happened.
Energy cannot be created nor destoryed, we both agree on this. The Universe formed because A. The Energy has been eternal, there was energy pre-Big Bang. B. This energy is with particles and this friction over "time" caused a massive explosion. This explosion caused the particles to smash, clash and form into atoms and new elements. As well as with the help of stars.
"We should never take things at face value and determine that chance and happennstance created something so perfect and lasting as this universe." Wrong. It's not perfect and lasting. The Universe is chaotic. Explosions and dark holes and matter clashing into matter. The Universe is expanding still leaving less energy to galaxies closer to the center. Eventually our galaxy wil recieve such little energy it will leave it in ice and cold.
While my opponent is correct in many assumptions from my first argument, my opponent still fails to address how we know historical figures did believe in some sort of Intelligent Design. I started that line of argument for this second argument to have some meaning. Some, it would seem, would have us ignorant that these people believed in these things. Dismissing what we know to be true about these people"s belief systems is not responsibly acknowledging the bias many of them might have had. This would be tragic for all mankind because it shows how many of these historical figures thought, which leads Scientists to understand the logical fallacies they had.
During his time, Thales properly predicted a Solar Eclipse. This was quite an advancement in Greek Philosophy. However, we shouldn"t discredit that Thales believed that "All Things Are Full Of Gods". To do so would not show how far Science has advanced our societies. Because of Thales" work, we are now better able to predict every time we have a Solar Eclipse. Should we ignore that he was personally biased in other areas because he believed in some type of Intelligent Design? Of course not! We would be doing him and his time period a great disservice, both by neglecting history and by dismissing his bias.
Principia, in 1687:
I do not think it explicable by mere natural causes but am forced to ascribe it to ye counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent.' A month later he wrote to Bentley again: 'Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent.' If, for example, the earth revolved on its axis at only one hundred miles per hour instead of one thousand miles per hour, night would ten times longer and the world would be too cold to sustain life; during the long day, the heat would shrivel all the vegetation. The Being which had contrived all this so perfectly had to be a supremely intelligent Mechanick. (http://www.library.usyd.edu.au...
Should this be randomly dismissed as the ranting of an archaic person? Of course not! If we dismiss this man"s beliefs, we wouldn"t understand why he couldn"t go further himself with the mathematics of the Universe. He was a devout person with his belief systems. This was part of who he was. Understanding how he thought has lead to many other people knowing their intellectual limits.
There are many more historical figures that believed a Being created this world. Studying how these people were personally biased is not irrelevant to this discussion. It is more relevant to understand these opinions because it shows flaws in their logic, especially concerning why they stopped short in some areas.
Dr. deGrasse-Tyson recently gave a lecture in which he criticized the Scientific Community for forgetting these people believed in Intelligent Design. He went on to say that of course our current knowledge of how the Universe works discredits those ideas, but maintains they should not be randomly dismissed.
Here is a great explanation as to Intelligent Design:
Of course, dismissing History is neither wanted nor desired. We can still study why these and other people had personal bias based upon their belief systems. To simply say that what they believed, whether Alchemists, Astrologists, or any other of the Ancient Sciences, is irrelevant misses out on the many biases we still have today. It doesn"t allow for effective communication, misses the point of historical bias, and quite unfortunately leaves many people unintelligent about history and unintelligent about other areas of philosophy, including Theosophy.
Theosophy has added enormous value to our societies. It allows people to actually think about the greater mysteries of the Universe. By dismissing this school of Philosophy, we dismiss the very essence of why people look beyond themselves. We dismiss that people, like Sir Isaac Newton, were truth seekers because they were concerned with understanding the mysteries of an Intelligent Designer.
Should Intelligent Design be taught as though it were pure Science? Since Intelligent Design has helped many historical figures to understand the world we live in, and the Multiverse we live in, it shouldn"t be discounted, dismissed, or even ridiculed. Instead, it should be embraced but understood that flaws exist in the Philosophy. It should be acknowledged that without this Philosophy, Science wouldn"t better understand today why things like the Ion Drive work, or how the Speed of Sound can be broken. People wouldn"t care whether we had Electric, or if we could sail around the world. We would be stuck in the Stone Ages without people who wanted to understand what and where we live.
So, yes, Scientists should allow, if for nothing else out of respect for historical accuracy, Intelligent Design being taught as historically relevant. Simply dismissing Intelligent Design is akin to trying to change the history of science itself.
Thank you for the 2nd part of this debate. I await my friend and opponents response.
Thales: We're not dismissing his findings, we're dismissing his intelligent design. Thales also believed the earth was floating in water, should we not dismiss that too?
Let me be very clear on this, Intelligent Design concept is NOT randomly dismissed. It is dismissed because it lacks the evidence and especially dismissed in it's involvment in life, because we have found a theory, with supporting evidence to discredit it.
Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught as a science or in science at all. It was a philosophy idea that many scientists subscribed to. It's concept should be dismissed.
While we know that the thinking was flawed, without studying history we wouldn"t know that they were. We cannot, by any real sense, dismiss these ideas that made these great scientists and philosophers stop investigating, or we fail to understand why they did. Studying why they believed in Intelligent Design is just as important as studying why Newton said that the bodies being moved in the heavens was inspired by The Great Mechanick.
History is every bit as important as any other field of Science. What people believed is just as important as studying as the Big Bang, or anything else for that matter. The Archaeological Field attempts to not only find out where people lived, but also what they believed, ate, drank, etc. Why? Because without knowing these things we cannot find out about our past. Intelligent Design has always been an important part of these fields of study.
In closing, I want to say that I have made the claim that a Scientist can give a rational reason a to Intelligent Design that most Scientists can and should agree with. I believe that Neil deGrasse-Tyson made it very plain as to why that is.
I thank you again for the debate, and wish many more happy and thought provoking debates in the future.
With that being said, I have made my case as to why Intelligent Design has no place in science. Reasons being that Intelligent Design cannot be tested scientifically and therefore cannot be in science. Also, it implies that the laws of nature must be suspended, in which you need significant amounts of evidence to have anyone support your claim. Also, it would serve a useless purpose in Science because it cannot be tested and therefore it would be just like giving up and saying "Well it was god who did it!" instead of actually testing and finding out the answers.
You should vote Con due to the fact that Pro failed to refute ANY of my arguments in the second round. In the third round he stuck to ONE argument in which I refuted. In the fourth round Pro seemed to be confused as to what we are debating about.
The Burden of Proof was on Pro as he said in round 2: "The Burden of Proof is on me, since I make the claim, as to whether a Scientist can and should properly make the correct argument as to Intelligent Design having any useful purpose in Science."
Pro failed to meet the Burden of Proof he assumed upon himself. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.