The Instigator
alexcasey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Beethoven
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

teaching intelligent design not evolution should be mandatory in all 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/22/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 78007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

alexcasey

Con

To whoever should accept. we will be debating whether intelligent design (christian or otherwise) should be taught in schools as fact. it goes without saying that a combination of the two or neither one is not an option for the purposes of the debate. first round is acceptance and no final arguments can be made in the final round. goodluck
Beethoven

Pro

I accept. Hope the debate goes well!
Let's begin!
Debate Round No. 1
alexcasey

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge.
Intelligent design (the notion certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection) is officially defined as pseudo-scientific rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. It is also a highly faith based idea and has very little formal proof to warrant a higher scientific standing infact in my own opinion it barely reaches the scope of a decent hypothesis.
Officially evolution is a "theory". However scientific theory differs greatly from traditional theory in the sense it is generally accepted by the vast majority of specialists in that field and has been witnessed on a micro scale but not witnessed on a macro scale (as this takes many millions of years).
Why is this relevant? Because it is clear which is the more logical argument when dogmatic belief is thrown out the window. Belief is not a proof, especially when it is used to teach others (minors in particular). By removing evolution and replacing it with intelligent design children will be led to believe that this is fact whilst being deprived of general scientific consensus. This is dangerous especially when related to a faith based teaching. Those who are athiest or indeed who do not believe in the predominant religion of the land are are told that their faith is wrong and the beliefs of the majority of the land are inherently correct. this is dangerous.
finally intelligent design as a teaching restricts learning in a number of other areas most notably biology where the corollaries and derivations of evolution play a huge role.
In conclusion intelligent design falls under the scope of scientific consensus, is dangerously faith based, can be used as a tool to oppress those of dissimilar faiths and restricts learning in other fields.
I await your reply.
Beethoven

Pro

Beethoven forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
alexcasey

Con

alexcasey forfeited this round.
Beethoven

Pro

Beethoven forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
alexcasey

Con

alexcasey forfeited this round.
Beethoven

Pro

Beethoven forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
alexcasey

Con

alexcasey forfeited this round.
Beethoven

Pro

Beethoven forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
I am sorry about the name calling. I wasn't trying to call you names. I meant by basing your reasonings on your foundation which is your final authority is ignorant and biased. Without God you can't know anything (Proverbs 1:7.) I am basing my authority and my reasonings on the Bible which is my foundation which becomes my final authority.You may asked " By what authority does Christians claim the Bible has as their ultimate authority?"Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing. If we use any other authority by which to authorize the Bible, THAT authority then becomes our ultimate authority. For instance, if we say that we will accept the Bible as our ultimate authority only if %100 of literary scholars say it is true, then those scholars become our ultimate authority, not the Bible. Christians therefore claim the Bible as our ultimate authority by its own authority as the word of God. I"m sure many people will say: "But that"s using circular logic!" (using what is to be proven in the proof). What you must realize though, is that any claim to ultimate authority uses circularity, but not all can be (read only one is) valid.

If you are not a Christian I ask: What is your ultimate authority? Most "unbelievers" have never given this question much thought but the answer is often: "My own human reason." My question then is: "By what authority do you use human reason as your ultimate authority? "Um"my human reason?" This logic is entirely circular!

To be valid an ultimate authority must first claim ultimate authority and then prove itself internally. Lets contrast the "unbeliever"s" view above with the Christian view.

The first fatal flaw of the "unbeliever"s" view is that it is completely arbitrary, (totally up to the individual), and therefore is not law-like in nature and loses any degree of necessity. If this was the case, no ultimate authority could be "right" or "true" and no one could be at fault for pursuing their own ultimate authority.

T
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
How was I trying to offend you with quoting a Bible verse or is it offense for praying in public over my meal or when someone asking me to do it at a gathering? I was proving that people who are atheist or not atheist are without excuse when they are saying there's no God.
Do you believe absolute truth exist or doesn't exist?
Do you know something to be true or don't know Anything to be true?
Does logic exist or logic does not exist?
Do you believe Logic is universal or logic is relative person?
Do believe Logic changes or logic doesn't changes?
Logic is made of matter or not made of matter?
Matter changes or doesn't changes?
If you want to debate on whether Creation and Evolution are both Religions,accept the challenge to debate. If you will not do it, then I have to challenge your foundation of reasoning.( Titus 1:11) NIV
Also my job is to get you converted whether or not you are saved.
Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught ? Supposed you go in a forest and find a picture hanging on a tree,you wouldn't say that took billions of years? No, you would say that a painter put it there. You also said it is dangerous to teach that in schools. Well look what happened when Hitler and Stalin believed in evolution!!! When you start teaching the students that according to evolution you are nothing but animals see what will happen! Increases in Crime,dropouts,violence,abortions,drugs,etc. You made be mad when you read this. The Bible says to be always ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you (1Peter3:15) and scoffers are willfully ignorant of the Creation,Flood,and Coming Judgement (2Peter3:3-7). If you are Christian I will encouraged you to read your bible and if you are not saved, I will be praying for you .
For the King reigns and His Son,
CreationGuy
Posted by alexcasey 1 year ago
alexcasey
you are very very very very wrong when you say there is an abundance of heavier elements. there are relatively few. you are right we used to believe that all the elements were created during the bigbang however as science is progressive and entirely evidence based consensus changed and now it is believed that gradual formation of stars which themselves have huge endogenic are responsible for this. the core of the earth is also an extremely hot place and has created heavier elements. elements have been created in a laboratory in heat nowhere near seen in some stars and theses are the heaviest of the known elements. logically higher temperatues should easily be able to make lighter elements
this explains it more easily for you
http://sciencelearn.org.nz...
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
Here's my reply :(12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS"We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium ("heavy") elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.

Normally, because of the helium mass 4 gap, explosions of hydrogen can only produce helium. At first, Big Bang theorists maintained that that initial explosion produced all 90 elements. But later, recognizing the helium mass 4 gap, they admitted that even if the Big Bang explosion could make "something out of nothing," that primeval explosion (the Big Bang itself) "and even explosions of small stars (novas) "could only produce hydrogen and helium. For this reason, they looked to explosions of very large stars"super-nova explosions"to change hydrogen into the heavier elements.

But then came more obstacles. Although it is thought that the intense heat inside a large star is such that a few heavier elements might actually be produced, this would not solve the theoretical problem for two reasons: (1) Only a super-nova explosion is thought powerful enough to produce the heavy elements, and there have been relatively few super-nova explosions. More on this later in this chapter. That is problem enough, but (2)
Posted by alexcasey 1 year ago
alexcasey
also i was considering resisting doing this but all six of your evolutions have been seen atleast partially
1) the big bang is very real tested hypothesis that is only being advanced upon
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...

2) a very logical thing that is even obvious to a 16 year old physics student. you can combine hyydrogen atoms to make helium etc. this is complimentary to the big bang where lots of heat would be present

3) stars have been observed forming from gass clouds taken over a long period of time https://en.wikipedia.org...

4) we can trace life to almost a singularity of single celled organisms making it seem highly logical that all life came from one source http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com...

5) i belive the last point answers this atleast if you read it it should

6) you acknowledge this one

evolution no matter what "definition" you throw at it stands to reason objecting this simple fact is a naive and backward objection to science and logic as a whole. see this as a person without the bias of belief and the answer is clear
your welcome
Posted by alexcasey 1 year ago
alexcasey
first of all evolution is not a belief. second of all even if it were a belief i would obviously have a bias toward it notleast if i am arguing for it on a debate website? also if i am so biased and being biased is wrong why do you use creationist websites? also your 6 different meanings are not six different meanings they are the term evolution contextualised under different circumstances. for this instance i am calling upon the undirected processes aswell as natural selection aspects (i believe this is fairly implied). also you using bible verses to try and make a point does offend me. with all due respect the bible provides great insight into how a christian should live day to day life however it is not fact. it may be true however i do not believe it is and when coupled with the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise make it impossible for me to accept your passages as fact.
also i am not using excuses i hardly doubt calling upon general scientific rather than religious consensus an excuse.
please reply with any concerns, but bear in mind do not call me ignorant or bias when your proof stems from a religious book and a website cringefully unworthy of being convincing
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
You are ignorant and very bias in your believes. You are only setting up straw men arguments and it is secular re seasoning. You made several claims in your comment about it is wrong to teach intelligent design in schools at the expense of evolution. If looked at evolution , you will find that evolution has six different meanings to it (http://creationtoday.org...). You find that the first five you have to believe by blind faith and they don't even happen!!! The last one we can agreed that does happen which simply stars variations within the "kind" like different varieties of dogs . You also said it will offend atheists who don't believe in God. The Bible says "19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of Him from The Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His Eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Romans 1:19-21). Now do you want to make any other excuses?
Posted by Beethoven 1 year ago
Beethoven
I am an idiot!
Posted by Beethoven 1 year ago
Beethoven
I made a fatal error. You are con for the topic. I mistook you for pro.
Sorry! Maybe we will just discuss the stupidity of intelligent design?
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
I am interested in doing this debate. I am guessing that you are for teaching evolution in school than teaching intelligent design.
No votes have been placed for this debate.