The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Saulo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Intelligent design is not scientific

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 43633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

round 1: acceptance
round 2: arguments
round 3: rebuttals to round 2
round 4: conclusion/ rebuttals to round 3
Saulo

Con

Merriam Webster Dictionaries defines Scientific as,

: of or relating to science
: done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science

This led me to define Science.

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry)
: a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

I then defined Intelligent Design.

:the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence.

According to the definition found above, intelligent design, is scientific.
Intelligent design is at its core a theory of how the universe was created, no different than the theory of evolution. Many Colleges and Universities present and "formally study" the subject of Intelligent design. It is a theory based on observations of the world, again no different Darwin's theory of Macro Evolution.

Intelligent design is not a science, such as biology, hematology, physiology, etc. It is a scientific theory of how all things were created, based on observations and taught in Universities around the world.

According Merriam Webster's definitions, Intelligent design is scientific.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

Before I counter my opponent’s points I will first make arguments of my own.

WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS UNSCIENTIFIC


PSEUDOSCIENCE:a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Indicators of Pseudoscience:
1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

    • Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements

So does intelligent design make vague claims? Yes it simply claims there was a designer without specifying or suggesting who might be the creator.

    • Failure to make use of operational definitions
    • Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible

Well evolution explains everything just as well as intelligent design without some vague “designer.” So yes intelligent design does make more assumptions than the other explanation Darwinian evolution.

    • Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science

Let’s see; irreducible complexity anyone?

    • Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Well that so called designer can do pretty much anything so no; intelligent design has no boundaries.



2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

    • Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment.

Well that designer again can do pretty much anything so that means that it can’t be falsified.

    • Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.

Yes, intelligent design experts are telling “evolutionists” to demonstrate that their theory is false when they are making the claim.



3. Absence of progress

    • Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims [59] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.

“Everything is to complex too have risen by random chance; there must have been a designer;” and that’s the sum of Intelligent design’s argument and there’s nothing more.

    • Lack of self-correction: scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[61] By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

No matter what evidence comes up the intelligent design claims never change.



4. Personalization of issues

    • Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.

They do it all the time.

    • Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims.

We’ve seen this happen.



5. Use of misleading language

    • Creating scientific-sounding terms to add weight to claims and persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

Remember irreducible complexity?


Things in italic By Wikipedia^

Things in normal are my comment

So seeing as intelligent design meets most of the indicators of pseudoscience it seems a safe bet that it is NOT scientific.


"Intelligent design is at its core a theory of how the universe was created, no different than the theory of evolution."

But it is different; intelligent design is pseudoscience based on an inherently unfalsifiable thesis. What you are describing is more akin to a religion than a science because it has no actual evidence of design.



SOURCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org...













Saulo

Con

Saulo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Saulo

Con

First of all I would like to apologize for not completing my rebuttal in the last round.

"Scientific" is a very vague and general term. Defined as only "of or relating to science" it comes to an argument to determine what truly relates to science. Categorizing a theory of our creation as this so called "Pseudoscience" does little for a theory that fundamentally admits to needing faith.

It is very difficult to discuss Intelligent Design without mentioning Faith, and I would like to be the first to bring it up. One cannot argue that Intelligent Design does not take some level or a strong level of Faith, however faith is not "unscientific." The definition I will use for faith is as follows, strong belief or trust in someone or something. Intelligent Design admits to its necessity of faith, while other theories deny their necessity. Scientist teach that organic matter came from inorganic matter. Scientist do not know how this happened, when it happened, or where it happened, yet they teach that it happened despite any evidence of it happening. It takes faith in scientists and this theory to believe its plausibility. For the theory of macroevolution, one must have faith that this world is old enough and rich enough for different kinds of animals to change from one kind to another. Also one must have faith to believe that a statistical miracle in Genetics can continue to happen over and over again in a relatively short period of time. There is no solid evidence of any of change of kinds, or macroevolution, yet we are taught that it in fact happened.
For a theory that is said to be based on "Logical, Factual, Evidence" it also requires a large amount of faith.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

"Scientific" is a very vague and general term. Defined as only "of or relating to science" it comes to an argument to determine what truly relates to science. Categorizing a theory of our creation as this so called "Pseudoscience" does little for a theory that fundamentally admits to needing faith.

So con admits that intelligent design is pseudoscience.

It is very difficult to discuss Intelligent Design without mentioning Faith, and I would like to be the first to bring it up. One cannot argue that Intelligent Design does not take some level or a strong level of Faith, however faith is not "unscientific." The definition I will use for faith is as follows, strong belief or trust in someone or something.

Con is using a partial definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
The full definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.


By definition a scientific theory needs evidence and the full definition of faith shows that if you need faith then you don't have evidence because it's the belief in something for which there is no proof.

Intelligent Design admits to its necessity of faith, while other theories deny their necessity. Scientist teach that organic matter came from inorganic matter. Scientist do not know how this happened, when it happened, or where it happened, yet they teach that it happened despite any evidence of it happening.

First of all it's called abiogenesis. Second while scientists don't know completely what the process was they have been able to simulate the conditions of early earth; which is where and when it happened; and produce amino acids and other organic molecules. So while we don't understand it completely, we do have evidence of it. Abiogenesis is to long to go into right now but here's the article from wikipedia on it: http://en.wikipedia.org....

It takes faith in scientists and this theory to believe its plausibility. For the theory of macroevolution, one must have faith that this world is old enough and rich enough for different kinds of animals to change from one kind to another.

Again there is evidence so it doesn't take faith. We have boat loads of evidence to prove the earth is old enough for evolution, the second part about being rich enough is kind of vague but please be aware; the standard creationist model of a bunny giving birth to a snake is a completely inaccurate picture of evolution.

Also one must have faith to believe that a statistical miracle in Genetics can continue to happen over and over again in a relatively short period of time.

It's not a miracle in genetics; it's punctuated equilibrium: http://en.wikipedia.org...


There is no solid evidence of any of change of kinds, or macroevolution, yet we are taught that it in fact happened.

In fact there is plenty of solid evidence; we have the fossil record which gives evidence for evolution: http://www.agiweb.org.... We have experiments that show evolution happening: http://en.wikipedia.org.... We have evidence of common descent; a core idea in evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org...; Also Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

With that much evidence it takes a LOT more faith to say it didn't happen.


For a theory that is said to be based on "Logical, Factual, Evidence" it also requires a large amount of faith

Well the evidence I've presented above seems to be logical, factual, evidence. It has so much evidence what you're saying is the equivalent of saying that the theory of gravity, or general relativity requires a large amount of faith.

SO EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH; RATHER IT TAKES FAITH TO DISBELIEVE IT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

CONCLUSION
My opponent has agreed that intelligent design is pseudoscience which is by definition not science. Con then brings up the idea that faith is not unscientific; however I showed that it isn't by definition. Then con brought up the red herring of evolution requiring faith which I disproved. So during this debate con forfeited, used a red herring fallacy, an incomplete definition, and conceded to intelligent design being pseudoscience which means he has conceded that intelligent design is not scientific.


Sources

Every link above

and

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Saulo

Con

The term "pseudoscience" keeps coming up in this debate which brings up the question, what credibility does this term have? One may create any term and categorize anything anything as pleased. This does not change the fact that Intelligent Design relates to science as a theory of how all things came into being, little evidence or no evidence. It fits into the definition previously stated, weather my opponent agrees or not.

I was accused of using an Incomplete definition. If my opponent was familiar with National Forensic League standards for debate he would know that one can pick and choose which definition of word to use. I specifically stated that I would use a certain definition for the word.

While there is no denying that micro evolution is true, one can still argue that macro evolution is a bit fantastical.

The fossil record is incomplete in many ways and controversial within many circles.

The theory of macro evolution using the fossil record is full of assumptions of observations, not facts. And many times scientists create assumed creatures that they present as the missing link in their beloved fossil record.

I am not attempting to discredit the theory of evolution, what i do want to do, is explain that to accuse Intelligent Design as unscientific one must examine other theories of our creation. A scientific theory remains a scientific theory no matter how fantastical or factual it might seem.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
because it's fun totally tearing down ID.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
First off ID is not a theory nor is it science, it is creationism with a new label. and it is based on faith.
Theory is based on facts, this is a fact that no longer admits of intelligent dispute. Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit there ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. Wish full thinking will not make it true, and the great thing about science is its true whether you believe in it or not. Why do intelligent people still argue this point?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
theta_pinchSauloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has adequately defended the resolution. Also, Con's forfeiture loses him points.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
theta_pinchSauloTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Even thought I agree with Con, I think that Pro gave slightly better arguments in favor of Con. He cited sources and showed how ID is not considered Science. I think Con could have shown more, but overall I have to go with who did the best.