The Instigator
Gary10
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Starpad
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,375 times Debate No: 9032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Gary10

Con

Intelligent design has no place in the classroom. It is religious in nature and therefore violates our constitution. It is also unsupported by scientific evidence.
Starpad

Pro

i have no rebuttle because i was reckless in entering the debate and thought that the instigator was in favour of teaching intelligent design
Debate Round No. 1
Gary10

Con

Intelligent design is not backed by any scientific evidence. In addition to this it based off of religious belief and is therefore unconstitutional. The teaching of intelligent design would be a violate the principle of separation of church and state in addition to harming our children's education.
Starpad

Pro

Intelligent Design does not deny the scientific merit of evolution and is not supportive of any religion in particular. It is important to teach intelligent design beside evolution because it is important to expose young minds to a wide variety of opinion and theory in all areas of study. In the end the teaching of Intelligent Design does not in any way take away from the education of children. If Intelligent Design were to be taught beside evolution it would show that science and faith are not opposing entities but instead can exist harmoniously, this would help to heal the drift between science and religion that has been created over the last few decades.
Debate Round No. 2
Gary10

Con

Intelligent design is in direct opposition to evolution. It holds that life could not evolve through natural selection. While intelligent design may not endorse any particular religion it does clearly endorse religion over non religion. This violates the separation of church and state. If intelligent design was taught beside evolution it would actually show that science and faith are in direct opposition to each other as evolution and intelligent design are opposing ideas.

The teaching of intelligent design would harm our children. If intelligent design were taught in our schools it would open up the opportunity for other psuedoscientific ideas to enter into classroom discussion. Placing ideas such as intelligent design in the classroom gives them merit in the minds of our children. Discussing claims with no scientific basis as though they were science would confuse the meaning of science and reality in the minds of our children.
Starpad

Pro

Your opposition to Intelligent Design steams from your belief that Evolution is considered scientific fact when in fact it is a theory yet to be proven, so Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught because it doesn't oppose anything that is considered actual scientific fact.

It would be beneficial to students of religious families as well because as it stands many children are removed and home schooled because religious parents feel as if evolution is unbeneficial knowledge for their children. These home schooled children are not only deprived of knowledge that would be taught through a school curriculum but they would also be deprived of the opportunity to develop social skills through interacting with fellow students. The teaching of Intelligent Design as helps students develop crucial critical think skills (which is the focus of the curriculum for those in the 7 grade and high anyway).

The teaching of Intelligent design does not violate the separation between church and state because Intelligent Design is impartial and doesn't claim the teachings of any one religion to be true, instead it says that the way that our planet functions may indicate that certain aspects of the earth and the organisms that live on are too complicated to have happened on its own.

On a side note I would like to thank my opponent for being so gracious despite my recklessness that has taken away from his ability to best defend his idea, and the over depth of this particular debate. I look forward to debating you in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
no offense I think you were getting caught up in definitions as well. You know by testable I ment put into practice. as an answer to sherlockmethod you can put the idea of gravity into "practice". thats why its called a law however as a contradiction you could say newtons theory of relativity disproved the original ideas Newton had. Newtons laws are still taught however as it gets more complicated relativity is more widely accepted. Much like this the Big Bang could have the same outcome. we dont know. These clues or hints that were suggesting the big bang happened could vary well be the same thing as the theory of relativity
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"why is it still called into theory?">

Remember, a scientific theory is much different from the most common usage of the word "theory."

"Theory" is often used in a context similar to a "hypothesis," "guess," or "idea" that has little to no support, but in science, this isn't the case whatsoever; a theory is a separate entity. In order for something to be considered a theory in science, as I stated, the scientific method must be applicable to it, and testing is actually inherent in the scientific method, which means in order to be a theory, something has to be testable.

Essentially, you're getting caught up definitions; a theory in science and the way most people use the word "theory" are very different, indeed.

I realize Wiki isn't the best source, but it does give a very nice explanation as to what constitutes a theory in science: <"In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.">

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

<"but none of these things are practicable or provable by what I know.">

Definitively provable? Of course not. Not a whole hell of a lot is, really. And if it were, it'd clearly be a law, and not a theory. But yes, what was outlined on that site were, indeed, means through which this theory was tested.

<"it seems to me the sight has many ideas leading to the big bang but none the less I see no reason why it shouldn't stay as untestable as ID.">

This seems to be contradictory. These ideas and explanations, and...well, tests, are why the big bang isn't as "untestable as ID."
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
ok at this point I see you two are attempting to humor me or atleast patsox is being humored(literaly) however I would like to say that I have not said once this conversation that the Big Bang is not true. I have not said it is or isnt. I know a simplified version of scientific method would be observe, hypothesis, predict, then test. everyone learned this in elementary school. is there a more complex idea I am missing here. please inlighten me
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
well, since I am so clueless why is it still called into theory?

also from what I saw on the sight the sight stated the planets are recedeing, The abundance of light elements, and cosmic microwave radiation.

yes all of these things could imply the big bang happened. It sure would answer these questions. but none of these things are practicable or provable by what I know. I might not be getting it according to you so I would like for an explanation if possible. it seems to me the sight has many ideas leading to the big bang but none the less I see no reason why it shouldn't stay as untestable as ID.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Number,
Present a debate on what you think a scientific theory is and explain the difference between observational and experimental science. Also explain how Newton fit the planets in a lab when formulating his idea of gravity.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"You cant test it.">

Uh...yes? You can? The link I supplied shows this.

<"If you could it wouldn't be called a theory.">

You obviously don't understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't merely "an idea."

The thing about theories under science is that, in order for them to reach the level of "theory," it *has* to be testable. To fully constitute a theory, the scientific method has to be applied, and part of the scientific method is, well...testing.

In essence, you're hilariously wrong, because part of being a scientific theory is testing, which clearly means that theories can be tested...they have to be, or else it hasn't met the criteria.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
look, im going to put the answer everyone else always gives. True or not you cant test the Big Bang. There are clues leading to the idea that the big bang happened such as the link you gave me. convencing ones at that but none the less. You cant test it. If you could it wouldn't be called a theory.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Ugh, I can't believe I posted that with such an insanely misplaced comma.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"but you cant test the Big Bang either.">

You most certainly can.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

A little research will show you sufficient testing of the big bang, is very much possible.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
patsox834- "It is certainly *not* a theory, as the scientific method is not applicable to it. In order for it to be a theory, this would need to be the case"

dude, you cant test ID but you cant test the Big Bang either. thats why that is still considered a theory as well.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Gary10StarpadTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Haunted-Soul 7 years ago
Haunted-Soul
Gary10StarpadTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Gary10StarpadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
Gary10StarpadTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10