The Instigator
Biowza
Pro (for)
Winning
76 Points
The Contender
Casiopia
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 7/23/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,828 times Debate No: 4773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (20)

 

Biowza

Pro

I affirm that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

[Definitions]

Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god).

Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

[Burdens]
Affirmative- Show that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
Negative- Show that Intelligent design is a scientific theory.

I'll let my opponent make the first move.
Casiopia

Con

I affirm Intelligent Design is a Scientific Theory.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologist is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and cconclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

So, as stated above and by definition Intelligent Design is a Scientific Theory
Debate Round No. 1
Biowza

Pro

"The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologist is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."

No, it is not an effort to empirically detect anything. Empirical implies that the idea of intelligent design stands on its own merits and is strongly rooted in evidence. It is not. It relies on the unprovable idea that an omnipotent god (or design agent) exists. It also implies being unbiased, which intelligent design proponents are clearly not. All but an extreme minority of ID proponents are religious, what sort of empiricism is it if one believes one will go to hell if one doesn't worship this supposed creator? 'Apparent design' is not acknowledged by 'virtually all' biologists at all. If anything, the phrase 'apparent design' is only used in the scientific arena moments before the utter destroyal of the idea. I would like to see some evidence for 'virtually all' biologists (modern day, mind you) observing 'apparent design'.

"ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information CSI)."

This is not an observation. It is a guess, there is a difference. A big difference. I'm assuming by specified information, you're referring to William Dembski's 'specified complexity' idea (by the way, Dembski's opinion on scientific matter is all but worthless, he is not a scientist). Dembski's idea is based on shoddy mathematics, terrible application of scientific principles, a bias perspective, and almost unsurpassed ignorance. His whole idea revolves around calculating things that are impossible to calculate, such as the likelihood of an eye coming about. He mixes up all his definitions of information, complexity, and improbability and his work is a general mathematical mess.

"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."

The very use of the term 'design theorists' implies that these people are not scientists and they generally have no knowledge of the natural world to apply to their idea. Either way, this CSI term if I have interpreted it correctly is nothing but the mad ramblings of Dembski.

"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information."

This is actually true, scientists DO perform experimental tests to determine if something is irreducibly complex. Not only have the results suggested that nothing we are aware of in our current world is irreducibly complex, but they have actually given scientists a better understanding at how certain things may have evolved.

"One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

Evidence for irreducible complexity has never been found, ever. Compare this to the mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution and what do you get? You get a bunch of religious zealots bastardising legitimate science in order to convert the world to their own dogma. Oh and before you mention it, the flagellum motor has many legitimate explanations which I would be happy to share with you outside this debate.

---------------------------------------

Now, lets look at the actual definition of a scientific theory.

Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

Let us go through the list and check things off in order to ascertain whether or not intelligent design is a scientific theory.

Experimental evidence- *BZZZZZ* As I've shown previously, intelligent design is not supported by any empirical evidence. All cases of supposed irreducible complexity have been sufficiently answered, and even if they weren't one side not knowing something does not make the other side right.

Previous observations- *BZZZZZ* Intelligent design is based around the idea that an omnipotent design agent exists, this has not been observed and by definition cannot ever be observed as such a deity would supposedly be outside of space and time.

Predictive- *BZZZZZZ* Nothing new can come about with the idea of intelligent design. Nothing changes and it can make no predictions. Every answer is that everything is as it always has been and we learn nothing. Evolution on the other hand has given humanity hundreds of new ideas and has greatly advanced the progressions of things such as modern medicine.

Testable- *BZZZZZZ* By definition, it is not. One cannot test for the supernatural in the natural world. For arguments sake, if such a god were to be proven to exist in the natural world, it would make the idea of ID more feasible. However as it stands now, one cannot truly test ID.
Casiopia

Con

All of us are able to detect design. We all know, for example, that this page was not the product of random typing. A retreating glacier may create a mountain, but the glacier doesn't build a cabin on top of it. Reason tells us cabins come about through intelligent design. "No biologist denies that, on first inspection, complex life forms appear to be designed." Albert Alschuler
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." Albert Einstein.
Pro writes about ID Theory..."It also implies being unbiased, which intelligent design proponents are clearly not. All but an extreme minority of ID proponents are religious" I believe that this is pro's problem. He religiously believes that science is an absolute truth, The U.S. Constitution permits scientific critiques of scientific theories but my opponent does not. When scientists constantly learn through empirical evidence that there are scientific problems with Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution such as, but not limited to...GENETICS: Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity, BIOCHEMISTRY: Unguided and random process cannot produce cellular complexity, PALEONTOLOGY: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils, TAXONOMY: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life, and CHEMISTRY: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery (How could a primordial soup arise on the early earth's hostile environment, or how the information required by life could ever be generated by blind chemical reactions? The astronomer Fred Hoyle claimed "the probability of life arising on earth (by purely natural means, without special divine aid)is less than the probability that a flight worthy Boeing 747 should be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard".
The Intelligent Design movement addresses those who are willing to consider the possibility that the blind watchmaker hypothesis may be false. If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to "follow the evidence wherever it leads!" The science establishment generally sees the evidence as only supporting Darwinism, because Darwinism upholds and conforms with the widely held philosophy of methodological or metaphysical naturalism. Many scientists simply do not perceive any other evidence. They can't, because their methodological naturalism filters it out. For them, the most ID could prove is that science shows "there can be no scientific explanation of origins." Michael Ruse.
"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion." Hume in a rarely quoted part of "The Natural History of Religion

"Scientific advances are made not by canonizing our predecessors but by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our successors." Prof James A. Shapiro

"I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Charles Darwin "I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." [Charles Darwin, Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859]

Nature June 14th reports that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another refuting the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. This is just what the ID model predicted.

Much like the letters in a sentence, DNA is made up of many smaller molecules strung together in a precise sequence. Though it can be arranged in any order, a random one will no more make a viable organism than random English letters will make poetry. Only those sequences that correspond to the "genetic code" can be read as plans for the protein "machines" that power our cells. This information is essential to life as we know it, but where did it come from?

That question brings focus to a debate that's raged since Charles Darwin: Life, like poetry, appears designed, but is it? Darwinists claim it's merely the product of a long series of lucky accidents, sorted by the grim reaper ("natural selection"). But such evolution is something only reproducing life can do, and DNA is what gives life the ability to reproduce its vital information. It is therefore unclear how information-carrying DNA itself could have evolved. There are more theories than crime dramas on CBS, but few are as realistic.

For this and other reasons, a growing number of scientists are rejecting the Darwinian claim that life is an accident. Intelligent design theorists note that DNA, as well as the protein machines it codes for, possesses "complex specified information" (abbreviated, coincidentally, CSI). This means it is both highly improbable (complex) and conforms to an independent pattern (specified). Design theorists argue that this failure to find a viable non-intelligent explanation for life's information should not surprise us; for in our experience, CSI is always the product of intelligence.

An illustration will clarify: Imagine finding "I love you" scribbled on a deserted beach. A Darwinist might stand there wondering what unknown natural process produced the message, but most of us would conclude that someone had written it. Why would we think this without any direct evidence? Not because marks in the sand are themselves impossible for natural processes to produce; a mass of sticks in the tide might do it. And not because of the sheer improbability of the arrangement itself, for any other would be equally unlikely. We infer design because this improbable arrangement conforms to an independent pattern. Since the English language does not determine the movement of sticks in the tide, the possibility that they would just happen to produce "I love you" is not just remote; it's irrelevant. We recognize that this kind of specified complexity is always the product of design. An alternate explanation might exist (imagination is free, after all), but only an illiterate brute would fail to recognize design as the most logical explanation of a message in the sand.

What does this have to do with DNA? It, too, expresses a highly improbable arrangement (in its molecular sequence) that conforms to an independent pattern (the genetic code). In fact, complex specified information is precisely what makes it useful to life on earth at all. If there's a problem with the illustration, it's that it's too simple. The DNA sequence of even the lowliest bacterium would fill a hefty volume if written out in English characters (yours, assuming you're a human being, could fill a million pages). If life's essential information were really like a message in the sand, the full text of Romeo and Juliet would be a closer analogy. In everyday life, we routinely infer design based on far less CSI than this; should we not conclude the same here?

Evidence for irreducible complexity has never been found, ever. See Below website.

http://telicthoughts.com...

Neo Darwinism is losing it's credibility as science progresses and this is clear as six states are already teaching Scientific criticisms of neo darwinism. ID is obviously a scientific theory if congress is supporting that it be taught to critique neo darwinism in public schools.

Charles Darwin himself said "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating & balancing the facts & arguments on both sides".
Debate Round No. 2
Biowza

Pro

I've debated this topic several times and the thing that seems to ring true time and time again is the universal truth that intelligent design advocates do not understand that:

A) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum
B) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum by misusing and totally misunderstanding basic scientific concepts
C) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum by misusing and totally misunderstanding basic scientific concepts while also showing a total lack of knowledge in even the most rudimentary facts of the legitimate theory you're trying to discredit.
D) Even if you were to by some divine miracle (sorry, couldn't resist) manage to single handedly destroy the theory, it would not win you the debate for the simple fact that you have not come close to meeting your burden.
E) The disproval of evolution does not warrant the credit of intelligent design as a scientific theory (the burden).

Your quotes are irrelevant, of the seven quotes used, only two were done by real scientists, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. And these quotes really do nothing, they have nothing to do with the point you're trying to prove.

Allow me to address your laughable attacks towards evolution:

"GENETICS: Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity"

Huh? People in elementary school can make a more informed statement. Mutations is exactly what GIVES complexity to organisms. It is the whole backbone of natural selection. This is such common knowledge that I don't even feel a need to source it, but a simple google search yields 22,398,000 pages that support this (subtracting about 2,000 christian pages), as well as every single piece of modern scientific literature.

"BIOCHEMISTRY: Unguided and random process cannot produce cellular complexity"

What? I'll get onto this concept of 'unguided' later, but I find it difficult that people can actually think that biochemistry is somehow evidence of the illegitimacy of evolutionary theory. Biochemistry and related areas such as molecular biology, structural biology, and molecular modelling DEPEND on the existence of evolutionary theory. A lot of these sciences work because of the idea that gradual changes in organisms occur over an extended period of time. Cramming 'god did it' where reason once was essentially ruins the very premise of these sciences.

"PALEONTOLOGY: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils"

Oh, really? Lacks transitional fossils you say? Care to explain the existence of:

Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Aetiocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus and Equus.

This is just an incomplete list that I got from wikipedia (oh don't tell me, they're all in on the conspiracy too?).

"TAXONOMY: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life"
Interesting, care to explain this picture then? http://tellapallet.com... and this? http://www.sciencemag.org... what about this? http://demonstrations.wolfram.com... Damn, biologists suck they should leave biology to the EXPERTS!!!

"CHEMISTRY: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery"

*Sigh* Actually it is a well developed science called abiogenisis, and there are currently many well respected and currently tested hypothesies. This is the logic of intelligent design proponents I don't think I'll ever understand. "You don't know how x occured with 100% certainty, I also have no idea, therefore I am right!".

---------

Your lack of knowledge of evolution makes my head hurt. It is not a random and misguided process. It is a formulated theory, which can make real predictions about the outcome of certain circumstances. Think of it this way, you throw a rock and it lands 20 meters away from you. Now, if I'm to use your logic I can make a random guess at odds, hmmmm lets say 1 in one trillion odds of the rock landing 20 meters away, yeah thats a good number. Think about it, the rock had to be thrown at the PERFECT angle, the rock had to have the PERFECT mass, the rock had to have the PERFECT initial velocity, and have the PERFECT shape to land at the distance of 20 meters away. Now is this proof that it is infinitely improbable to throw a rock 20 meters away? That it is just pure chance that the rock landed where it did? No. This is a field of chemistry called statistical thermodynamics, which essentially states that any configuration is infinetely improbable however ultimately, however improbable, any configuration must exist in a state. So what you essentially do when you spit out your arbitrary number is just predicting the probability of finding a specific organism in a single state.

The population of a system of states is not a matter of 'luck' as your uneducated ID friends tell you, but they are goverened by chemistry. Just like with our rock problem, the system of states is governed by gravity. Evolution is an attempt to explain a system of states of various natural organisms. Something that it has done very well, something that has overwealming evidence, and something that has withstood the harsh scrutiny of the scientific arena. So we've established that not only that evolution isn't 'random' or an 'accident' (By the way, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, I'm hoping you know this...).

I find your 'I love you' analogy hilarious. I think my analogy makes a lot more sense (and I'm sure the people judging will as well). Three men are in three seperate dark rooms, the rooms are identical and each contain a wooden chair that cannot be seen due to the darkness of the room. The agnostic decides that the room is too dark to see anything, and remainds standing. The atheist wanders very carefully around the room until his hand brushes something. He feels the object to find that it has four legs, a study back, and after pressing down on top of it, he decides that it can hold his weight, he has discovered that it is a chair and sits down. The man of faith (or intelligent design proponent) was reading the bible before entering the room and is absolutely sure that god told him that there is a comfortable bed directly in front of him. He happily jumps face first into the ground.

-----------

All these flawed attempts at science are laughable. I seriously question whether my opponent has had any experience with science what so ever. I urge the voting audience to ignore any attempts my opponent has made to discredit evolution and also ignore my responses to these attempts. They have nothing to do with the debate at hand, which I remind you is "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory". The burdens have been clearly identified and established, mine being to show that it IS NOT a scientific theory. I have done this as follows:

-Used an uncontested definition of 'scientific theory' (incidentally, this definition is the one used in science and cannot really be contested).
-Taken key elements of the definition and showed how intelligent design does not meet these requirements

My opponent has made no steps towards meeting his burden of showing that intelligent design IS a scientific theory. My arguement by definition has not been challenged once all that has been presented is bronze age scientific knowledge with no relevance at all to the debate.

Sadly I have reached my charachter limit.

Vote Pro.
Casiopia

Con

Every scientific theory should be logically evaluated based on scientific merit, not motives; evolution should not be rejected because some of its advocates are atheists, and design should not be rejected because most of its advocates are theists. In conventional scientific method, motivations can influence the proposing of a theory but should not affect its evaluation.

In everyday life, we conclude that "the origin of this feature required design" when we wake up in a house, listen to a radio, read a newspaper, or drive a car. Why? Because we observe "signs of design" that we think could not be produced by the undirected natural process of non-design.
A radio signal with a short string of prime numbers (like "2 3") is not complex, and it could easily occur by chance. A long string of random numbers is complex, but is not specified because it has no pattern or function. But a long string of prime numbers (2 3 5 7 11 13 17,...) is complex and (due to its conceptual functionality) is specified.
Other types of specification due to functionality occur when you read a paragraph and understand the meaning, see a "painting" on the wall of a cave, or when a combination of metal is a "bicycle" you can pedal to the store.

These common examples are uncontroversial, and we can infer "design" even if we didn't observe the designer or design-action. But questions arise when the design-action seems unfamiliar (so it might be supernatural?) and we're looking at design in biology. In these situations the main concerns are religious — Is a design theory a creation theory? — but critics also have methodological questions:
Is an argument by analogy justifiable, in a claim that because scientists confidently infer design in a common context (for a house, radio signal, cave painting,...) they should accept the possibility of infering design in a biological context (when we ask if design-action was required to produce biological functionality in the first living cell, or in the DNA specifying a functional protein, biochemical system, or whole organism)?

Proponents of detectable Intelligent Design in formative history usually ask questions about biological evolution and chemical evolution:
• For each step in an extrapolation from small-scale evolution to a large-scale natural production of all biological complexity (and for this macro-evolutionary scenario as a whole), how many mutations and how much selection would be required to produce the changes in DNA that we observe, how long would this take, and how probable is it?
• Are some systems irreducibly complex (because all parts are required for the system's function), and could such a system be produced by a process of step-by-step evolution if there would be no function to "select for" until all parts are present?
• Could a nonliving system naturally achieve the minimal complexity (with hundreds of biomolecular parts) required to replicate itself and thus become capable of changing, in successive generations, through natural selection in neo-Darwinian evolution?

Most scientists think neo-Darwinian evolution could produce all existing biological complexity. Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray explain why: "We know several evolutionary mechanisms that increase the size of a cell's genome (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal transfer, polyploidy, endosymbiont capture). Combined with natural selection, this allows information transfer from the environment to the cell's genome. In addition, the genomes of living organisms display redundancy and multitasking, allowing for the evolution of novelty and interlocking complexity. (source)"
And they recognize the limits of current knowledge: "In order to know whether or not some complex piece of biological machinery could have evolved, we must know each species' genetic sequences [by genomic sequencing that has only begun recently], but also understand in great detail how gene products interact with each other in living cells." They think that currently "the jury is still out" on design questions, but "it seems most promising — both scientifically and theologically — to study biological complexity expecting to find more evidence that God designed into it the ability to self-organize."
Can scientists correctly evaluate and distinguish between similar theories such as natural evolution and creation by genetic modification? Yes, if they had enough detailed historical data — such as lab reports for structure, physiology, and (especially) genome-DNA, for all organisms during a period of change — it would be easy. But with the data we actually have, it is more difficult.

Logic and Testing: A particular feature was produced either by detectable design-directed action (design) or by what appears to be undirected natural process (non-design). These two possibilities are mutually exclusive, so if non-design is highly improbable, design is highly probable. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by empirical observations, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable; it is falsifiable because we can conclude that a design theory is probably true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is probably false (if any non-design theory seems highly plausible).
Can design be proved? No. A design theory does not claim that non-design is impossible and design is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable. But proof is always impossible in science. Instead, scientists try to develop a high level of logically justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. Therefore, it seems unreasonable for critics of design to demand, by using the logic of postmodern skepticism, that if design proponents cannot claim the certainty of proof, they can claim nothing.
Scientific theories are evaluated based on scientific evidence-and-logic combined with philosophical perspectives that include deciding what to conclude when the evidence is not conclusive. Should we give non-design the "benefit of doubt" and put the "burden of proof" on design? Or, instead of declaring a winner, can we just say "we're not sure at this time" and continue searching, with a humble open-minded attitude, in our efforts to learn more?

We can logically infer design in two ways: with positive design-logic we recognize "signs of design" as in a house, radio signal, newspaper, or cave painting; with negative design-logic we ask whether a feature could be produced by non-design, and if we answer "probably not" then we conclude it probably was produced by design. These ways of thinking are related, and a "sign of design" is usually an intuitive recognition/conclusion, based on experience and logic, that production by non-design (by undirected natural process) is highly improbable.
Scholars sometimes analyze the process of science in terms of invention and justification, with each having different scientific method expectations; the initial invention of an idea can occur in any way (as when Kekule visualized the structure of benzene in a dream)but the process of justifying this idea requires scientific evidence and logic. We can think of positive design-logic as a way to invent a claim for design, and negative design-logic as an attempt to justify this claim by using scientific evidence and logic.

So I propose that ID is a scientific theory & its obvious that the only reason scientists might reject this is b/c they are worried about the implications more than the truth. We need to realize we don't have all the answers and to learn more we need to investigate all options. I believe any scientist that is against design theory is mainly concerned with their welfare because they think if design were an option they would be out of a job. Design isn't a science-stopper, ID can be scientifically useful if the perspectives of design and non-design are combined, w/ creative-and-critical thinking more truth will be uncovered.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
GodSands,
No, not as simple as. The vast majority of people on this website are from the US, and the majority of US people do not believe in evolution. IIRC, only ~10% believe in evolution sans god.

A survey (of NH countries, Europe, Japan and the US) from a couple of years ago revealed that only Turkey is more resistant to evolution: http://www.newscientist.com...
The shocking news is that the proportion within the US is actually declined between 1985 and 2005.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
its most likey that people fighting for evolution will have more votes because more people believe in evolution to intellengent design. simple as.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
47-48.
Ridiculous.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Casiopia is getting a nickname.

stay tuned @ debatef.com
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
This debate was won long ago by Biowza.
The current score above (40-48) is the result of block voting (a.k.a. vote bombing).
This tells you something about CON and/or his friends.
Posted by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
yeah, and the fact that some states are actually teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is even worse. I mean, if you want to believe in a supreme creator, go ahead. But if you want to try and disguise that belief as a theory and teach it in schools, that's not okay.
Posted by Mattsterpiece1993 8 years ago
Mattsterpiece1993
Seems there's been a huge mix-up with what intelligent design does. It arrives at a conclusion first, and then attempts to justify belief in a universal magic act with constant straw man fallacies, misconceptions, lies, etc. And of course, when its opponent, that being evolution, has been proven, then there is no way it can even be considered a decent hypothesis, let alone a theory, let alone a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Posted by samuelchen 8 years ago
samuelchen
there's ACTUALLY 3 votes FOR intelligent design?
*sigh*...
Posted by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
I hate the 747 analogy, because every single desgn theorist uses it, and it gets old. ID theorists want you to believe that evolution means that a bunch of completely random changes produced the finished result. A better analogy to describe the line of evolution would be: there is a whole big pile of 747 parts. You try to put the pieces together, and every time you put together pieces that are right, they stay together, but every time you put the wrong piece on, it falls off. Yes, it would take a while, but it would eventually be possible to finish. Essentially, the evolutionary laws of natural selection create the falling off action, because in nature, whenever an organism is not "correctly" built to compete with other organisms, it will go extinct. But when an organism has the right qualities to compete, it will be able to survive, thus the piece staying on.
Briefly, the 747 analogy is crap.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Fact: Biowza quoted a Thunderf00t argument.
Fact: The score is currently 2-2.
Conclusion: Wtf?
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dummy 6 years ago
dummy
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by zabrak 6 years ago
zabrak
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 Feklahr 8 years ago
Feklahr
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by KokeAndSoup 8 years ago
KokeAndSoup
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Marader 8 years ago
Marader
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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 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 Casiopia 8 years ago
Casiopia
BiowzaCasiopiaTied
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