The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 4)

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...
Cliff.Stamp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 15486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

NOTE if you have a problem with definitions or rules or anything, please post in the comment section first, to see whether we can both agree to amended rules or descriptions before starting.

I will be the CON, which means I claim that intelligent design is an irrational belief.

My opponent will be the PRO, so will be arguing that intelligent design is a rational belief.

(PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side)

In order to win I have to argue that Intelligent Design is an irrational belief

In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is a rational belief

Definitions

Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life

Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity

Rational - agreeable to reason

Reason - the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

Opening Argument......

Previously I have argued in favor of Intelligent Design, but in this debate I am jumping to the other side.

Argument 1) Natural causes are our default position.

Some time ago, when there was lighting and thunder, there were people that ascribed a supernatural cause to this phenomenon. With more understanding and less superstition this has become an untenable position.

Some time ago, some people subscribed sickness and disease to a supernatural cause eg God or demons, instead of germs bacteria, and mutations of cells.

When some one hears a loud bang, they don't first think, ahh that must be God, they automatically assume a natural cause.

The point being, in order to function we assume a natural cause, and the origin of life and the universe should not be different, unless we have good reason to over turn this general principle. Seeing my opponent is the one arguing for intelligent design I will leave it up to them explain why we should over turn this general principle.

Argument 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There isn't any shortage of extraordinary claims, and to believe all of them would be disastrous.

Claiming that an all knowing, all powerful, all good, uncreated being created the universe is an extraordinary claim, but where is the extraordinary evidence ?

Argument 3) Ignorance does not support a supernatural cause.

"Where did X come from ? We don't know, thus God did it"

Without understanding of something, its tempting to use "God" or the "Supernatural" as an explanation "God did it", But there is another option when faced with ignorance, and that is to say I don't know.

The I don't know answer isn't very intellectual or emotionally fulfilling, but its the rational response.

To say that ignorance in something in anyway supports a supernatural cause is logically fallacious and thus should be rejected.

Argument 4) Improbability is not the same as Impossibility

To argue that an improbably event or series of events must be the result of a supernatural cause is logically fallacious.

Go throw a rock some where, where it lands and also when it lands, on the spot that it landed, is extremely improbable, but never the less, there it is. An improbable outcome yet without a supernatural cause.

I look forward to Pros' response.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

To proceed, instead of dealing with a strawman, let us first consider Intelligent Design as defined, argued and researched by the actual community of scientists who advocate such a position :

"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. " [1]

"Argument 1) Natural causes are our default position."

This is a strawman, again, from the actual scientists who perform the design research :

"Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. " [2]

Note, is able to determine, not "proceeds from the assumption that".

"Argument 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

While popularized by Sagan, this quote originates from Truzzi who stated it as :

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. " [3]

Ironically, this was part of an argument where Truzzi was noting that some skeptics would make negative claims without bearing the burden of proof.

But again, this is a strawman, no design theorist has ever asked for acceptance without experimentation, nor do they submit papers for review, in peer reviewed journals, and ask for exemption from the peer review process. They are judged, as are all scientists on their merits alone.

"Claiming that an all knowing, all powerful, all good, uncreated being created the universe is an extraordinary claim, but where is the extraordinary evidence ?"

Again, strawman, and again from the actual scientists who do design research :

"Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. "[4]

"Argument 3) Ignorance does not support a supernatural cause."

Again, strawman, see immediate point above.

"Argument 4) Improbability is not the same as Impossibility"

Finally an actual argument. Now the core argument when design is advocated is that a natural phenomenon is examined and design is concluded by rejecting all known undirected causes. Note undirected, that is what makes design - design, direction. Con argues (paraphrase) "Well at most they can conclude that it is unlikely not impossible.". That is exactly true, however that is all any scientist can even conclude when they look at experimental data and perform a correlation analysis.

Let us take the most basic experimental method of analysis, rejection of the null hypothesis by the student-t test[5]. All this does is look at a set of data and compare how likely there is no correlation vs correlation (or a similar paired hypothesis). When this test is performed by a bit of basic number crunching there will be a result which is similar to "The null hypothesis is rejected with a p value of < 5%". What this means is that there is less than 5% than the null hypothesis is true.

Now 5% was picked for a reason, that is the default level of significance in most of the physical sciences (biology is typically 1%). Thus if Con is really going to argue point four they are over turning the most fundamental of all physical experimental tests. Thus if a design theorist was judged consistently, all they would have to show was that an undirected cause had a less than 5% probability and they would be valid in rejecting it.

Note a lot of care has to be taken here, as with all of statistics - this does not mean anything less than 5% of happening through unguided causes has to be designed, that would be a farce. The actual experiment would look at the expected number of results vs the observed and compare both models. Again, Con makes a strawman, that is not how actual design theorists frame an argument. Now as to how the arguments are actually presented, lets continue with the affirmative.

With all of Con's arguments shown to be trivially refuted, a very short and simple argument for Pro. Intelligent Design is argued by actual research scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals such as Douglas Axe's recent paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology[6]. Now if a research scientist, who has a Phd from CalTech, can make an argument for Intelligent Design which is accepted by a prominent peer reviewed journal then how could it possible be argued that the position is irrational. Now it is not the case that this is the only paper, example after example can be given, but just consider the simple fact that all of science starts with just one paper.

I would argue that even if one paper was published in a peer reviewed journal under proper circumstances (mistakes are made even in science - oh noes), then by the definitions noted in the above it has to be concluded that the position is one of reason as that is exactly how science defines knowledge, in fact it is how science is actually defined as the body of knowledge which comes from the method of science.

"Science is both a body of knowledge and a process."[7]

Now once you are peer reviewed and published essentially it is part of science. Of course it could be later over turned, that happens, but this does not make it not science. Thus the counter argument is again very simple, actual scientists with real and relevant academic degrees publish ID papers in actual peer reviewed journals - thus the ID movement is inhernetly rational by the univeral metric by which science itself generates and even more so defines knowledge.It is only irratonal if science itself is declared to be irratonal.

[1], [2], [4] http://www.intelligentdesign.org...

[3] Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

[5] http://www.socialresearchmethods.net...

[6] "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds" (Axe, J Mol Biol 341, 1295-1315, 2004).

[7] http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

When I made this debate I had a form of "creationism" in mind. Pro has made the point that their is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. I agree with this point, but would like to make the following point. In the west, the biggest advocates of Intelligent Design are people who believe that intelligent designer is God, a God that designed the world about 6000 years ago, with just two humans (read literal interpretation of genesis)

Why does this matter ? Cause intelligent design is argued as a scientific fact or theory, so they are trying to get creationism labelled a scientific theory or fact by stealth. Ill have more to say on intelligent design as science later on. It seems to me Pro has taken a supernatural explanation off the table, so I will argue against a "natural" intelligent designer.

Most of Pros counter arguments were by saying strawman, strawman. Obviously my arguments don't apply to Pro if they have not used such arguments. But never the less, bad arguments used to support ID like the argument from ignorance are commonly used so are not strawman arguments in the context of the larger debate of ID.

Lets go over some of my opening arguments from the first round.....

I had said "Argument 1) Natural causes are our default position."

Pro had no refutation of this argument, as such it seems to me that Pro agrees with this point.

Previously I had said "Argument 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Although Pro gives a history lesson on the origin of the phrase, it doesn't refute the point made.

Argument 3) Ignorance does not support a supernatural cause.

Seems to me Pro agrees with this point.

Argument 4) Improbability is not the same as Impossibility

Pro doesn't refute this.

Pro says "Now the core argument when design is advocated is that a natural phenomenon is examined and design is concluded by rejecting all known undirected causes"

This is an argument from ignorance. Even if we rule out all KNOWN undirected causes, we can't then say it has been proven that intelligent design is true. Why ? because there is another option, that even if we rule out all known undirected causes, it still leaves the option open that their are UNKNOWN undirected causes.

If you want to argue Intelligent design, you have to show evidence/proof of intelligent design. So what is the evidence/proof ?

Pro gives an argument, that if some one makes a claim like Intelligent Desinger, the fact that is made, and published, means it is a rational belief.

Well I could publish my hypothesis that invisible pink unicorns are the cause of the space time continuum, according to Pros argument, if I can get that hypothesis published and peer reviewed, it is part of science and thus rational.

A hypothesis that is peer reviewed does not equate to it being a rational view.

Counter arguments for a natural intelligent designer

CA 1 - Falsifiability

Seeing that Pro is trying to argue that intelligent design is scientific, part of science includes such questions as, if X is false, how could we prove that it is false ? See I could argue my invisible pink unicorns hypothesis, and no one could prove me wrong, but you see in science its not enough that no one can prove the hypothesis wrong, there needs to be a way to prove the hypothesis false if it is untrue.

So how is an intelligent designer hypothesis falsifiable ?

CA 2 - An intelligent designer requires an explanation

An intelligent designer can not design something more complex than its self.

If an intelligent designer is required to explain complexity, then the intelligent designer its self needs an intelligent designer and that intelligent designer needs an intelligent designer.............unto infinity.

If some one tries to get out of this infinite regress by stating something like, well there is one intelligent designer who them self it not caused by any other intelligent designer eg God.

But this undercuts the argument of the necessity of an intelligent designer, cause if something as complex as God can exist without an intelligent designer, then so can humans who are even less complex than your typical christian/jewish/isamic/theistic Gods, and if complexity requires an intelligent designer, then a complex God requires an intelligent designer.

I look forward to Pros response.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"In the west, the biggest advocates of Intelligent Design are people who believe that intelligent designer is God, a God that designed the world about 6000 years ago, with just two humans (read literal interpretation of genesis)"

This is the genetic fallacy where an assertion is rejected (or supported) based on its origin. The fact that ID may have its roots in those who argue for theism is not relevant to the fact that it is a rational belief.[1]

"But never the less, bad arguments used to support ID like the argument from ignorance are commonly used so are not strawman arguments in the context of the larger debate of ID."

This is a fallacy of composition. The fact that there are irrational people (as a part) who assert ID does not mean that ID (as a whole) is irrational. If this were actually a valid argument then everything would be irrational as there are irrational people who hold any belief. Charles Mason for example is by any definition irrational, however if this argument against ID holds, then anything he would assert would therefore be irrational. Thus if he noted that the earth was round, that is an irrational position. It is trivially obvious this argument is fallacious.

"Pro had no refutation ..."

One does not refute a strawman argument by definition as it is an argument of an irrelevant construct. It was clearly noted in each case that the ID momement does not hold to such positions in the advocation of ID.[2]

"... even if we rule out all known undirected causes, it still leaves the option open that their are UNKNOWN undirected causes."

When conclusions are reached in science, as noted clearly in the above in great detail they are not done so on the basic of absolutes, they are done so on the basis of probability.

If the assertion that Con is advocating were actually held to be true then it would be impossible for anyone to conclude design as is part of science, in fact it would be impossible to actually conclude anything at all.

To understand this consider the recent finding of Tiktaalik [3] which is argued to be the link between amphibians and tetrapods. Can science prove absolutely that there is no random natural process which could have produced this fossil - of course not.

Thus by Con's argument it can not be concluded to be a fossil as it could very well be just a random assortment of elements which just look like one.

"Well I could publish my hypothesis that invisible pink unicorns are the cause of the space time continuum, according to Pros argument, if I can get that hypothesis published and peer reviewed, it is part of science and thus rational."

Yes once published it is part of the body of knowledge that is science, it stays there until it is refuted. There are three common ways to do so (1) letter to the author, (2) letter to the editor (3) publish a contradictory study. Normally the third method is used as it is less directionally confrontational.

In the case of competing views the position is that both are part of science and it is just uncertain which one is more likely to be true. Thus if ID and evolution are both published the position would be that both of them are part of science and it is simply uncertain which is more likely to be true.

Now if Con wishes to reject that peer reviewed publications should be considered part of the body of knowledge of science then they should at a minimum define some metric by which they advocate one should instead judge which peer reviewed articles are to be included in the body of knowledge which is science.

"So how is an intelligent designer hypothesis falsifiable ?"

Design would be rejected, this is a well known practice in all of science. Specifically the events would better fit a model of undirected causes, really specifically, the forcing function for an undirected cause simply has a fit criteria which is based on the outcome of the system (usually its function), whereas the forcing function for a directed cause has an explicit goal which modifes the characteristics of the system.

"An intelligent designer requires an explanation"

If ID is rejected as unscientific because the ID'er can not be explained then Con has to reject gravity as being unscientific unless they can explain why gravity is not repulsive. Science is concerned with the how of things are, not the why of things at a fundamental level.

Newton quantified gravity in a physical law, Einstein extended this as being a property of inherent mass[4]. Neither of the theories actually dealt at all with the why as to gravity is attractive or why mass causes gravity, they just noted that it does.

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[2] http://www.nizkor.org...

[3] http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...

[4] http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their response.

Pro makes the charge "This is a fallacy of composition. The fact that there are irrational people (as a part) who assert ID does not mean that ID (as a whole) is irrational."

Before when I made the point about literal biblical creationists advocating Intelligent design, I had not meant that ID should be rejected just because some one or group advocates ID.I am not arguing that ID should be rejected because the people that advocate may be irrational, but because the reasons given for ID is irrational. Yes I realize how my comments were taken to mean that by pro, I blame myself for not being more precise in my comments.

Also I made another mistake where I said ""An intelligent designer requires an explanation". As Pro has noted, and I will paraphrase, in science for an explanation to be accepted the explanation its self doesn't need an explanation, sure its nice to have one, but its not an absolute necessary criteria.

Pro says "Now if Con wishes to reject that peer reviewed publications should be considered part of the body of knowledge..."

This is a strawman attack, I never argued that peer reviewed publications aren't part of science, what I did argue was that just because something is part of science doesn't make that something rational, example my hypothesis of invisible pink unicorns or Intelligent Design.

Pro takes issue with my argument against the necessity of an intelligent designer. My arguments were in response to one of the most popular arguments used to support intelligent design which goes something like this.....

1) Complexity requires an intelligent cause/designer
2) Humans are complex
3) Therefore humans have an intelligent cause/designer

As I had said before, this argument is self defeating because........ "If an intelligent designer is required to explain complexity, then the intelligent designer its self needs an intelligent designer and that intelligent designer needs an intelligent designer.............unto infinity"

If some one claims that there is an intelligent designer that is not caused by another intelligent designer eg God.... "But this undercuts the argument of the necessity of an intelligent designer, cause if something as complex as God can exist without an intelligent designer, then so can humans who are even less complex than your typical christian/jewish/Islamic/theistic Gods, and if complexity requires an intelligent designer, then a complex God requires an intelligent designer"

Now Pro has tried to infer that the intelligent design is a scientific, in order to justify that ID is rational. Consider what Richard Dawkins has to say on this matter...... "The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favor of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection [1]

Previously Pro had said "Now the core argument when design is advocated is that a natural phenomenon is examined and design is concluded by rejecting all known undirected causes""

As said before, this is an argument from ignorance, this argument says that its ok to accept ID even though there is no evidence for it, all we have to do it rule out all known directed causes.

Consider what Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch say on this issue "ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause." [2]

What is the actual evidence for ID ?

The definition of falsifiability is..... "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated." [3]

I had asked Pro how is ID falsifiable, Pro gave the a general outline but not a specific example. Consider this specific example how evolution is falsifiable as Richard Dawkins says......."And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.

As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours" [1]

So what is an example of how ID is falsifiable ?, how is ID vulnerable to disproof ?

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...

[2] http://ncse.com...

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

The majority of this post is simply repeating previous statements, and clarifying a few key points.

"I am not arguing that ID should be rejected because the people that advocate may be irrational, but because the reasons given for ID is irrational."

Pick any assertion/position, can you not make an obviously irrational argument for it? If so made would that then mean the assertion is irrational? Obviously not.

"I never argued that peer reviewed publications aren't part of science, what I did argue was that just because something is part of science doesn't make that something rational, example my hypothesis of invisible pink unicorns or Intelligent Design."

Rationality is the process of reason, reason is explicit in the scientific method. Specifically reason is the process by which observations are interpreted to verify or refute a hypothesis. If something is scientific, if something is part of the body of knowledge that is science, then by definition is was reasoned and thus is rational.

"My arguments were in response to one of the most popular arguments used to support intelligent design which goes something like this....."

Again, there is no contest that there are irrational arguments for ID, but there are irrational arguments for everything. Here is one :

"Gravity is the result of the intense love that pixies have for quarks. As all matter is composed out of quarks so pixies are always clustered around matter. As pixes love nothing more that quarks aside from themselves, when pixies cluster around matter they pull all nearby pixes towards them. Because all matter has clusters of pixies around it this results in all matter as being attractive."

Now this is clearly a nonsensical argument, however does that mean that gravity is an irrational concept, no, because a rational argument can be made for it.

"If some one claims that there is an intelligent designer that is not caused by another intelligent designer eg God...."

Again, ID is not about the nature of the designer, just like the theory of gravity, either through Newton or Einstein is not about who or what exactly made the gravity. Who is the gravity maker? In the exact same manner ID is not about who made the design, it is simply about the design.

Now if Con wants to argue the nature of the designer and the required attributes then that is a separate matter, just like it is a separate matter to discuss what is the nature of the thing which made gravity. While an interesting question, this is not relevant to the rationality of ID, this was noted explicitly in the opening round as the theory of ID is not concerned with the nature of the designer.

"Consider what Richard Dawkins has to say on this matter...... "

ID is peer reviewed and published, we do not accept if something is scientific because someone says it is, even if they are a scientist. In order for it to become part of the body of knowledge that is science then it has to be published.

I can trivially produce a list of quotes from scientists who say ID is scientific, how do we resolve this, put them all together and let them Thunderdome? No, we settle it where we always settle it, in the journals.

"As said before, this is an argument from ignorance ..."

This was already addressed explicitly in the above, specifically and in great detail referring to the null hypothesis and how conclusions are reached. And again this is not the only line of evidence, as noted design can be explicitly tested through modeling for intent vs cycle strengthening.

"Consider what Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch say on this issue "

Again, simply because a scientist says something is or is not scientific does not make it so. If Eugenie Scott wants to refute ID as being unscientific then she actually has to refute the peer reviewed and published papers, simply claiming it is not scientific does not work, no more so than claiming it is scientific without publishing does.

"So what is an example of how ID is falsifiable ?"

Again, from the first post :

"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"

and from the last post :

"Specifically the events would better fit a model of undirected causes, really specifically, the forcing function for an undirected cause simply has a fit criteria which is based on the outcome of the system (usually its function), whereas the forcing function for a directed cause has an explicit goal which modifies the characteristics of the system."

Note however, that while being falsifiable is of importance in science it is not an if-only-if criteria. While this was heavily advocated by Popper, this is not universally accepted and the demarcation problem still exists in the philosophy of science so care has to be taken. Note there many current very strong stances against Popper :

"Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology." [1]

To summarize :

1) ID is peer reviewed and published in many well respected journals.

2) This makes ID part of the body of knowledge which is science.

3) Science is based on observation and reason

4) Rationality is what is reasoned

QED ID is rational.

This stands until the papers which argue for ID are refuted and it moves out of the body of knowledge that is science. Things which are not relevant at all to this discussion are :

1) Does any particular scientist think ID is scientific or not

2) Are there irrational arguments for ID

3) Who is the the actual intelligent designer (for each system in question)

[1] W. W. Bartley, III: Biology & evolutionary epistemology. Philosophia 6:3–4 (September–December 1976), pp. 463–494
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
What I did note was that one could not argue that falsification was a clear line of demarcation in science (if-only-if) and this is well supported in the literature (philosophy of science) and even Popper's strongest supporters have admitted that his concepts can not be justified with rigor.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Con proposed that ID was unfalsifiable and therefore could not be scientific. Pro did not object to its unfalsifiability but the concept of falsifiability itself; I found his objection inadequate."

What? Surely you jest.

Con - "So how is an intelligent designer hypothesis falsifiable ?"

Pro - Design would be rejected, this is a well known practice in all of science. Specifically the events would better fit a model of undirected causes, really specifically, the forcing function for an undirected cause simply has a fit criteria which is based on the outcome of the system (usually its function), whereas the forcing function for a directed cause has an explicit goal which modifes the characteristics of the system.

It was noted specifically how the hypothesis could be falsified by numerical modeling, this was expanded upon later. At no point did I object to the concept of falsification.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Oh o, it happened again.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
No problem.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I haven't left the debate. I made a miscalculation on how much time I had left. In any case I am still participating in this debate so argue away.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I learn towards Intelligent Design, but I am not convinced I have explored the alternatives and counter arguments enough, so I wouldn't commit to it dogmatically.

I mean I can make arguments for both sides.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Not that it means anything, but just being curious, IC, what is your actual belief on the matter?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
That transparent? To be honest, I have some issues with ID, but I would not by any means consider it irrational, that is a really hard claim to make. I think the biggest problems with ID is the people who advocate it. When you have guys like Ken Hovind jumping on the ID train the movement starts to get tainted. Now this is irrational yes, but it is human nature.
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Well done Cliff. Devil's advocacy I presume?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
IllegalcombatantCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I will admit that this was terribly argued by con. However, pro did not present an alternative method for rational belief other than science. Con proposed that ID was unfalsifiable and therefore could not be scientific. Pro did not object to its unfalsifiability but the concept of falsifiability itself; I found his objection inadequate. So, while con wasted a lot of time and space with arguments he could not win, at least he did one thing right and won his trump card. I reluctantly voted con.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
BillBonJovi
IllegalcombatantCliff.StampTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited his last 2 rounds so my points go to Pro