The Instigator
Zach055
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrianCBiggs
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The teaching of Intelligent Design should be banned in all public schools.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 17625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Zach055

Pro

Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as Creationism but with a different name. They both mention how a creator made the universe and that everything is preplanned. Due to the separation of Church and State, Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools.
BrianCBiggs

Con

I would like to thank Zach055 for this debate challenge. I will be taking the position that Intelligent Design (ID) should not "be banned in all public schools."

It seems to me that my opponent's argument in round one would make a better outline than argument. He writes, "Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as Creationism but with a different name." In what way are they "basically the same"? In content? In what they critique? In the motivations of those making the arguments? How are they the same? I imagine Zach means that they are the same in content. If that is the case, I'd like to see that argued, not just asserted. It is my contention that ID and creationism are different in content, Creationist arguments start with the belief in a specific deity and propose a narrative as the best model to explain our origins. On the other hand, ID arguments do not contain explicit theological content.

Zach goes on to say that ID and Creationism "both mention how a creator made the universe and that everything is preplanned." Really?

Does ID necessarily entail a transcendent creator of the universe? William Dembski doesn't seem to think so:

Indeed the whole point of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity and my own specified complexity is that these are empirical features of mundane objects that reliably signal intelligent causation. Whether these mundane objects trace their causal histories through mundane or transcendent designers is irrelevant. (1)


Nor does he seem to support the idea that everything is preplanned:

Many scientists worry that intelligent design attempts to usurp nature's autonomy. But that is not the case. Intelligent design is attempting to restore a proper balance between nature's autonomy and teleological guidance. Prior to the rise of modern science all the emphasis was on teleological guidance (typically in the form of divine design). Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and all the emphasis is on nature's autonomy (an absolute autonomy that excludes design). Where is the point of balance that properly respects both, and in which design becomes empirically evident? The search for that balance-point underlies all design-theoretic research. It's not all design or all nature but a synergy of the two. (2)



Finally, Zach concludes that "Due to the separation of Church and State, Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools." When, in the thesis of this debate, Zach says "all public schools", does he mean all public schools worldwide? If so, on what grounds should it be banned in public schools within countries that do not have separation of Church and State?

But, I think there are bigger issues than the scope of the world 'all'. How does Zach think Church and State should be seperated? How does he think it applies to ID being taught in public schools?

By "separation of Church and State", is he giving an interpretation of the Establishment clause? If so, then this fails to argue that there is an ethical obligation to ban ID from public schools, but a legal obligation. In fact, it would mean that his argument amounts to saying that there is already an implied ban that is not being enforced or simply not explicit.

I think there is much lacking in Zach's case.


Sources:

1. Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, p. 276.


2.http://www.designinference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Zach055

Pro

Zach055 forfeited this round.
BrianCBiggs

Con

Since my opponent forfeited this round, I will simply let what I wrote in Round 1 stand.
Debate Round No. 2
Zach055

Pro

Zach055 forfeited this round.
BrianCBiggs

Con

Well, I am sorry to see that my opponent has forfeited this last round. I was hoping for at least some of the common talking points on this issue to be brought up. But Pro has failed to show that ID and Creationism are the same, let alone that ID should be banned. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
I think the resolution to this is pretty bad. Since it's still going on, I don't want to comment further, but I think that Pro has a HUGE burden...He seems to be forfeiting though...
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Friendly tip: teaching evolution can be taken as teaching there is no god (if people aren't theistic evolutionists). Also, what about the argument that you don't teach the greek creation myth in science either (since that is what creationism/intelligent design is comparable to)?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Zach055BrianCBiggsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins arguments because Pro did not provide counter-arguments. Pro's round forfeits give Con conduct points. Source points to Con because he was the only side to use any and they helped make his case.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Zach055BrianCBiggsTied
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: Con did not forfeit and argued. Pro did the reverse, and thus lost the debate.