The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Pro (for)
Winning
63 Points

Resolved: Intelligent design should be taught in American public schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 11 votes the winner is...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,501 times Debate No: 22739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Con

First round acceptance.
GenesisCreation

Pro

I accept. Thank you for a great topic.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting my deate, and I stand on the CON with the following overarching idea for my debate:

1. Intelligent design is not a credible science nor theory when analyzed from a scientific perspective.
The validity of ID has been challenged by the American scientific community, and the results of the general analysis of evidence of the theory points to the idea that ID possesses too little evidence to conclude the validity of the arguments therein, both from a theoretical and empirical perspective:

"Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution.
Every part of an irreducibly complex system is necessary: take away even one, and the entire system will no longer work. Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue..."The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at BrownUniversity in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed." Viewed this way, all of the systems that Behe claims to be irreducibly complex really aren't. A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells and several of the proteins in the human blood-clotting system are believed to be modified forms of proteins found in the digestive system.

"The second major argument for intelligent design comes from William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Christian think tank that serves as the nerve center for the ID movement.

Dembski argues that nature is rife with examples of non-random patterns of information that he calls "complex specified information," or CSI for short.

To qualify as CSI, the information must be both complex and specified. The letter "A," for example, is specific but not complex. A string of random letters such as "slfkjwer," on the other hand, is complex but not necessarily specific. A Shakespearean sonnet, however, is both complex and specific.

An example of CSI from nature is DNA, the molecule found in all cells that contains the genetic instructions for life. DNA is made up of four repeating chemical bases arranged into complimentary pairs. The bases can be thought of as "letters" in a four-letter alphabet and can be strung together to form genes, which can be thought of as the "words" that tell the cell what proteins to make.

The human genome is made up of some 3 billion DNA base pairs and contains about 25,000 genes. DNA is obviously complex. The fact that humans always give birth to humans and not chimpanzees or naked mole rats shows that DNA is also specific.

The fact that CSI exists in nature is evidence for design because intelligence is necessary to produce CSI, Dembski says. This is the part of Dembski's argument that many scientists have trouble with.

The nylon problem
There is a way to settle this, however, because like Behe's irreducible complexity, the concept of specified complexity can also be tested.

"If Dembski were right, then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information," Miller said.

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemicalcompany Dupont.

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from? hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. Secondly, the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it's believed to have developed from. Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently.

"Why scientists dismiss intelligent design"--MSNBC
GenesisCreation

Pro

Addressing the source:

I sincerely hoped to debate my opponent rather than MSNBC. The entire second round of my opponent was
copied from the source. Outside of the first two sentences, the entire body of work belongs to another.
I am not generally a stickler for etiquette but may I insist that my opponent form his/her own arguments?
This is plagiarism at its worst. Who is the author? What is the publishing date? Where is the link to the article?
Is this the entire work in context?

Refuting the source:

1.> Credibility- MSNBC has a history of false reporting. The news outlet consistently twists and
misrepresents the facts. Their reporting on the recent shooting of a teenage boy almost started a
homicidal manhunt. [1] The agency manipulates approval ratings of elected officials. [2] MSNBC
fails to fact check their sources, publishing Huffington Post satire spoofs as real news.[3]
The media company engages in smear campaigns against peaceful protestors. [4] MSNBC poster-child,
Rachel Maddow, consistently lies and fabricates charges against other media outlets. [5] The source
is not to be trusted, unless additional, unaffiliated sources confirm the information.

2.> Content- My opponent’s source attempts to discredit creationist apologetics arguments. The source claims
that irreducible complexity is not a valid objection to evolution because the bacterial flagellum subset
has a function outside of the larger construct. Since I don’t trust MSNBC very much, I researched his claim.
Here is what I found:

Bacteriophage X attaches to the filament of a bacterial flagellum by means of tail fiber, but the
ultimate receptor site for the phage is located at the base of the bacterial flagellum. Here, the
phage injects its deoxyribonucleic acid into the bacterium, leaving the empty phage attached
at the base. [6]

It appears the MSNBC article was wrong. The “function” that the “PHD” was referring to is not part of the
bacteria at all. It’s called a “phage” and it attaches itself to a fully formed flagellum. It is for this reason
that many real PHDs are fighting to ban the lies behind Darwinian evolution. [7] The “Dissent from Darwin”
petition has drawn the support of highly respected experts in various fields of science. The list of scientists
can be found here: http://www.discovery.org...

The Nylon problem seems like a good argument, until we realize that Nylon (although synthetic) is created
from pre-occurring compounds. Nylon is created from petroleum. The bacteria that produce “nylonase”
to digest Nylon are the same bacteria that break down naturally occurring petroleum products. The bacteria
are doing exactly what they always have done, except now they are eating a newer version of the
same old stuff. If I stop eating apples and start eating apple pies, did I evolve? My enzymes and stomach
PH levels need to adjust to digest the pie, so technically, I must have evolved. Nonsense!

It should also be noted that Nylonase is a weaker enzyme than it's predacessor. This loss of
potency, in Darwinian terms, is devistating to continued evolution of this bacteria. It's a
sort of "de-evolution".

In addition, evolution requires sexual reproduction to introduce complexity. Bacteria are asexual.
They essentially clone themselves. Nylonase does not support the evolutionary paradigm.

3.> Getting back on topic – The argument against intelligent design is rooted in fear. Its
opponents are afraid that a theistically conscious population will question, debate and demand
more from secular research than the common “Trust me, I’m a Doctor” answer.

There is a formidable mental prowess to a person with spiritual conviction. This constant search for a
deeper truth inevitably creates a critical skeptic; ironic as it seems. Attempting to convince a
devout Muslim that his forefather is a monkey or indoctrinating a follower of Christ into a “purposeless
creative event” paradigm proves indescribably difficult, no matter how big the bang is.

Yet, before we wonder if intelligent design has a place in the public school, we must first ask:
Why is it even an issue, unless you’re afraid of something?”

Intelligent design does not threaten medical research. It serves as no barrier in the development of
communications technology. It does not oppose the scientific method and it will not prevent the students
of a high school from grasping mathematics or logical sciences. Many state universities offer a religious
studies program and it has yet to cause the school to lose its accreditation. Adding intelligent design to
elective studies in a high school would not automatically eliminate evolutionary teaching. It would not force
children to pray and its mere availability does not make it a prerequisite for graduation.

If we did allow intelligent design studies in public schools, it would allow families of professed faith to better
support the school district, since the school district has supported their desire to raise children of faith. It
would also relieve stress on teachers who live a privately faith-centered life. The institution’s willingness
to fire teachers because they mentioned Jesus orMuhammad is flagrantly unconstitutional, especially
since those same teachers are forced to cover Greek mythology in great detail. Talking about Zeus is fine
but Jesus is a problem? Not all professors believe in Darwin. [8] The source states:

"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive,
dishonest, and intellectually myopic."

Over to you Con.




References:

http://alanstock.com... [1]

http://thelasttradition.blogspot.com... [2]

http://www.theblaze.com... [3]

http://americasbestchoice.blogspot.com...
[4]

http://www.theblaze.com...
[5]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6]

http://www.discovery.org...
[7]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [8]

Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
GenesisCreation

Pro

Arguments extended to next round.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
GenesisCreation

Pro

Arguments extended to next round. Please forfeit expediently, rather than letting the clock run out.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
GenesisCreation

Pro

Vote Pro please.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I just love Scarlet's debating style...
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Yes. He forfeits practically every debate he does. Just go look at his record.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
SuburbiaSurvivor, How did you know this debate would end in pervasive forfeitures? Does he do this a lot?
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Oh dear owen9999,
Satan doesn't need cheerleaders. Go study God's mercy. There is room at the cross.
Posted by owen99999 5 years ago
owen99999
Oh dear pro...

WOOP WOOP ATHEISM!
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
xD Not a good start, Scarlet. Try not to forfeit every round.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Colorful commentary... :-|
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Anytime where you have 2 contrasting opinions on something is all you need for a debate, really. Even though there isn't a shred of credible evidence that the United States planned out 9/11, you still have your conspiracy theorists...
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
One has no pieces of evidence contradicting it. The other has millions.
One is accepted by 100% if the sane scientific community as truth. The other is not.
One is a scientific theory. The other is bullsh1t.

-
Is this really a debate?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Do I have to?
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the entire debate. I am giving Pro the source poitns because he pointed out (correctly) that MSNBC often twists the facts.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF >.<
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, my opinion is teach it all
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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 and didn't really use his own arguments.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
ScarletGhost4396GenesisCreationTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: All points to Pro for Con's total forfeit.