Wow, I sure like waiting until the last minute. But I got this in on time too, and this is my last post. I await your final post. Thanks for agreeing to this debate and thanks to the judges for judging this. I await your final post, and then the judges' final votes. Thanks, it's been fun and I have learned a lot. So no matter what the outcome I have benefited from this. Now here's my post, before I run out of time



Yes I said it was similar. But the flying spaghetti monster "theory" is even more similar to it. It has some evidence, many followers (though not quite as many as ID), as well as being possible, and unable to be disproven.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The ACLU can sue if it's taught, and if you want to start suing school systems for ridiculing it, fine.

Wow, the reason we should teach ID as a valid alternative to evolution (not just mentioning it) would be to avoid legal complications? School curriculum is not supposed to be made to avoid contreversy. It's supposed to teach so kids actually learn. Let's teach atheism while we're at it. As it is now Christians think we have too little God in school and atheists think there's too much. If we just straight out taught atheism we wouldn't have to worry about teachers qualified in religion (they wouldn't need to know the bible, etc.) and we would have half the lawsuits (from only the Christians). I don't agree with this because that's not what education is about. Education is not to stop contreversy, it's to get people thinking. I'm all for teaching ID as a current hypothesis, something that hasn't been proven but is a leading belief as to what may have happened. But to teach it as the same level as evolution (a scientific theory) is just plain stupid, because there is not even close to as much proof as there is for evolution.



Yep, unfortunately I said in my original post why I left them out. #2 is the definition of the plural word and the 3rd has to do with the philosophy of Kant.

because they are different uses of the word. Are you trying to argue that science is the study of miracles? (or "marvels")

Do you not understand the words unaccountable, marvel, or remarkable? You think they're too vague? Look them up too.

And you keep trying to argue that ID is not considered science, but it is. There has just not been enough evidence set forth to consider it a theory. It is currently a hypothesis, a possibility along with happenstance origins. Evolution has to do with life as it is now, and can be observed. The origin of life, from ID to happenstance origins, simply wasn't observed.

sorry, but ID doesn't go against ANY established scientific theory. Please explain the scientific theory (as I said earlier, happenstance origins is NOT a scientific theory) that goes against ID.

ohh, I see. So since right now we can't prove that something's true, the way to prove it is to teach it to our kids as true, and then hopefully they'll prove it's true? Again with the flying spaghetti monster. It could be true, no one knows for sure. Why not teach it as fact in school? Maybe someone would study Him and prove that He really exists.

You explain why it is taught as a hypothesis. People are taught that a hypothesis is that there was an intelligent creator that created the Earth. If they want to find some way to test that hypothesis, either to prove or disprove it, I'm sure they could do that. You say that it has no chance of being proven true if we don't teach it as truth? That makes no sense, and could be used as logic to teach anything which currently can't be proven false, but is not established as true.

You're saying that evolution is only a theory because of politics? Nice idea, but until you give me some proof I'll have to take it as that, an idea. Do you understand what evolution is? It has been observed and verified. It is as much a theory as gravity, or will you advocate teaching IF next (Intelligent Falling teaches that things gravitate towards bodies of mass because an intelligent creator makes them)?




Because there is a big difference between hypothesis and theory. Here are the dictionary.com definitions, and I'll paste the whole definition since you didn't like when I only posted 2 last time.

Hypothesis:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

I hope you will agree 3 is not what we are talking about

Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


now 4 and 6 are certainly not what is meant by a scientific theory, but the rest give pretty good definitions. Compare this to hypothesis, there is a big fundamental difference. ID is a hypothesis, an educated guess, while evolution is accepted as true because of the amount of evidence.

sorry, but there are many religious people who believe in evolution (and even ID currently acknowledges that there was a common ancestor, just that God created it). And the reason they teach it is because it is true. We don?t teach things just because if we don?t people may be offended. It has been sufficiently proven, just as gravity has been proven. It is POSSIBLE that the theory of gravity is wrong. Maybe God decides when to attract two things together. Maybe the fairy does. We don?t know for sure, but we are almost positive that the theory of gravity (F = k*M1*M2 I think, but don?t hold me to it).



The problem is that we already have the common ancestor evolution at the theory level. It has caused many advances in scientific progress and Christianity is still the major religion in the United States. A common ancestor in no way relates to atheism. Atheism says there is no God. There is a perfect possibility of a God who created that common ancestor.


Well that is what you were supposed to prove through this debate. So far, you have not convinced me that there is enough evidence for Intelligent Design to be taught as a scientific theory. You have provided very good reasons to hold it as a hypothesis, and to encourage students as well as scientists to study ID, but not teach it as a scientific theory, because there is simply not enough proof.



Classrooms HAVE to get material from a website? How about a textbook? If I had my biology textbook from last year I would quote from it, but I assure you it holds open the fact that there is a God. What it does not hold open is that God created the Earth as it is today with no evolution. But I think that?s ok, they haven?t put in my theory about me creating everyone with their beliefs they are now. If you want to believe that God created the Earth as it is today, in fairies, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. no one is stopping you. Excuse me if I don?t agree with you that it should be taught as fact in school.


I am convinced that ID has the POSSIBILITY of producing evidence to consider it. I would welcome further study on this topic. Unfortunately, evolution has been established as fact and helped us a lot with a lot of accurate predictions. ID is open for study, but it should not be taught in the science classroom as fact.


certainly some people want it out of schools period. But that doesn?t mean that?s the way it is today. The first web site is simply an organization that has this belief. I?m sure there are many websites advocating teaching creationism too.

The second website refers to a creation class. That is not ID, or even the science classroom. In my opinion it should be allowed to be offered, as long as it is optional to take it.

And I?m glad you know why the ACLU does what it does, any proof for the fact that they are only ?mocking? it? I would think they?d either want it out, or they would defend it if someone wanted to take a case up.


Universities are private organizations. I?m sure Christian colleges would welcome a student studying ID. So you are advocating changing the curriculum of PUBLIC schools, just so private organizations will think better of ID?






and that financial interest should stay outside of public schools. There are also financial interests that desire to silence evolution and teach creation (not ID, creationism). There are financial interests that want to start school-led prayer. should we start teaching atheism because of the groups trying to eliminate it from public schools? Of course not.


You act like evolution is changing constantly. The theory is written up for anyone to view. It?s not some hidden changing force.

I believe the possibility of harm is much greater. Harm would be teaching our public school students that something is fact when it has simply not been proven as such. For you to call teaching ID as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something it simply doesn?t have enough evidence to be, the quest for truth? It is taught as a valid hypothesis, open for investigation, yet you MUST have it be taught as an alternative to evolution (a scientific theory)? That is certainly not the quest for truth.

Actually, I did too, but I guess you presented too much here. In my responses I tried not to open any new arguments, just replying with what I have said before. I will conclude here.

In this debate, it was your job to prove that Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Lots of evidence for it, nothing has falsified it, and it has made many correct predictions that have helped advance scientific knowledge. ID is simply a hypothesis that the cause of life could have been an Intelligent Designer.

You have certainly opened my eyes to the fact that Intelligent Design is actual science, and I?ll admit I went into this debate thinking that it should never be taught even as a hypothesis, and didn?t like that it was taught as such in our biology class. But you still have not convinced me or presented enough evidence to prove that it should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution. You have shown how there are possibilities of benefits from studying ID further, but that is different from teaching it in the science classroom as what is the closest to fact you get in science, a scientific theory.

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?" - Chris Rock

Likewise - I think this was a good, civilized one. You are mature beyond your years.

The creation / evolution debate will rage on for a long time. There are even differences of opinion as to whether man will ever be able to get any closer to answers about the beginning of life, regardless of how much or how little evolution and ID are studied and/or compared. I think it's safe to say that common ground isn't going to be seen anytime soon. So how it is presented to students in schools is very important.

The problem with the "what should be taught in schools" type of debate is that most everyone, including you and I, tend to somewhat quickly come to a conclusion based on our own personal belief system, rather than do some involved research on what is, and has been going on in our society, from the same (yet reversed) schools controversy 100 years ago that I referred to in my first post, to the ever changing political scene that's involved in today's "science". I've barely scratched the surface of these types of things in this debate, due to it's limited format, and the interest in keeping it brief and readable. The detailed information is out there and anyone can check it out.


You've defined the very broad term of evolution that way throughout the debate. What parts of it actually have evidence and what parts do not is never clearly defined in detail, because if they are, questions about it are asked which Darwinist evolutionists have difficulty answering. I think this debate has shown that the pro-teaching-ID side has an in-depth argument that the anti-teaching-ID side can't match with much more than the surface emotion of appealing to existing worldviews. The proof of that is the obvious fear that today's scientific community has of ID being studied and debated by an infinite supply of new young minds. The rift between evolution and ID tends to fade if one can be open minded enough to recognize that they are both ways of seeking materialistic truth, each with it's own value. Evolution is one group of scientific paths, and ID can provide new scientific paths. If they clash, the truth will prevail. The inevitable, subsequent worldview clashes are far too important to leave only to naturalistic science to judge.

I admire your honesty, but that's a big concession. Here's another, from your post #8;

If I convinced you of those in a 4/5 post format, I'll bet I could convine you of more in a longer, more detailed format. Another example of differences in depth of the two arguments, and why ID is feared by the scientific community. You won't see celebrity crusaders against ID, like Richard Dawkins, admitting those two things. He knows that one of the most basic, pure forms of accountability for his rants can come from students asking questions. The best way adults have to silence students is by intimidation, by a blanket delegitimation of the source of their questions, in this case, ID.



As I have stated, only science has established it as a theory, with little or no input from the general public, mathmetics studies, or history studies. The leaders of the scientific community have to exaggerate the status they have so far achieved, so as to limit theoretical options. Biological scientists simply don't like public scrutiny. Their objection to the public process is understandable because much of the public has moral principles that challange what science often wants to do with public funds, largely playing God. In what science has become, it occasionally needs some reversal in traditional morals, like the superiority of human life over animal life. Most of the many religions that are represented by ID contain human rights and values which can be roadblocks to much of what science seeks to do. It seeks utility - man and animal on exactly the same plane, routinely elevating one over the other as their current studies and experiments may dictate, from cloning to stem cell research to transplanting a baboon heart into a human. It's only logical that funding often comes from the same sources to keep ID out of schools as it does to eliminate 10 commandments displays from public places. Science sometimes needs things like "thou shalt not kill" to be replaced with more conditional human ideas that that allow humans to be killed under certain conditions, or that animals may at times be more worthy of life than humans. Experimentation, abortion, endangered species, environmentalism, etc. One word sums it up; POLITICS. It's part of science. We must deal with it, rather than wish it weren't true. Trying to hide it from students isn't the way to deal with it.

Science has become corrupt. It has been organizing and crusading against religion long enough to be increasingly recognized as a religion itself. It's time for it to be held to the same first amendment standards that the rest of religion is. Often the best way to combat corruption is not by a government "police" action, but by simply allowing a more unrestricted access by new interests, interests that aren't hopelessly mired in government funding. To allow science classes to be slavishly bound to philosophical, naturalistic science without ID is an indication of indoctrination, not education.

In this particular match up, I believe I've proved the resolution. Thanks for reading.

Thank you both for the stimulating debate. It is a nice addition to our formal debate room.

The judges may now render their verdict.

__________________
- Which is worse--ignorance or apathy? For my part, I don't know and I don't care. -

This is a pretty straightforward debate to judge. It took some twists and turns, but remained remarkably focused.

I couldn’t help but be impressed by zachvac’s continued insistence of distinguishing between hypothesis and theory. This was the equivalent of a right hook in a boxing match and he never failed to score with it. I easily counted his use of two dozen references to ID being only a hypothesis--a belief--while evolution was an established theory. It is a superb example of hammering a point home, and keeping an eye on the gist of the resolution.

Marc9000’s main thrust was an interesting examination of how politics and the zeal for funding are the deciding factors on what gets taught in schools, but he was always met with that stubborn right hook. Realizing this one-note samba needed to be addressed, marc9000 attacked in his fourth reply (post 15). This is where the two fighters closed in toe to toe with a flurry of punches and in which the outcome of the debate hinged upon, IMO. Consider these exchanges found in post 16:






Deftly deflected and finished off with--you guessed it-- the old right hook.

My decision goes to zachvac.

__________________
- Which is worse--ignorance or apathy? For my part, I don't know and I don't care. -

I've been in Florida for the better part of the week burying my Father-in-law, but I did get a chance to read the debate. I made a lot of notes on a printout that I read on the plane on the way home tonight, but will go through them in a separate post. For now, I wanted to cast my vote so that the participants didn't have to wait any longer.
My vote goes to zachvac. I'll post my reasons why tomorrow.
Congratulations zachvac, with two of the three judges giving you the nod so far, your victory is assured.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

In Marc's first post, he states "1) "Intelligent design" vs. "theory of evolution" are not very equal terms. Intelligent design concerns origins, and evolution concerns changes. Exactly, so in Marc's very first post, he acknowledges that Intelligent Design isn't the equivalent of evolution. The logical conclusion then is, it can't be taught as an alternative to evolution so the basic argument "Resolved: Intelligent Design should be part of the public schools' science curriculum, taught as a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution." is not balanced. If ID was the thesis, for example, evolution can't be the antithesis, so the debate is lost on the first post.
Marc makes a further error in his attempt to redefin the term science and its implications. Evolution IS observable, testable and repeatable. Marc attempts to force the argument that evolution must also deal with origin as ID does, but he already conceded that the two weren't equivalents.
Marc then goes on to introduce religion into the science debate. This, too, is a flawed argument and does nothing but muddy the waters.
Zachvac does a nice job of staying focused on the main thesis that evolution is science and ID is religion because there is no hard evidence to either prove or disprove. Zachvac makes the point of stating that viewpoints have their place, but they aren't in science class.
Marc attempts to appeal to authority and emotion in his statements "If science deals with how information is gathered, different ways of analyzing, and different hypothesis, then it involves worldviews. The base for the worldview of a sizable part of the population should not be excluded. Maybe in Saddam Hussien's Iraq, maybe in communist Russia, but not in the United States."
A reasonably critical observer would surmise that the number of people that believe something isn't necessarily proportional to the liklihood of it being true.

Marc further muddies the debate with conspiracy theories about atheists, corrupt scientists and politicians.
Zachvac stays the course and disputes Marc's claim that science has a nebulous definition, unknown even to scientists themselves. As a scientist myself, I find that to not be the case.
Zachvac accurately points out the flaw in Marc's argument that by allowing some "junk science" into the curriculum, you must allow ID merely points out that the current curriculum is "messed up".
Marc, again, goes into a conspiracy theory about governmental funding of science and concludes with " In 1989, the budget of the National Institutes of Health was $7.9 billion. In 2005 it's $28.8 billion. This is one of many government agencies that science "serves", and others have fat budgets as well. Leaf through Science magazine and you'll see that the maintanance of government spending on science is one of it's biggest preoccupations. To maintain it, science peddles hope and fear. Of course, some say that religion peddles the same thing. Science would rather not compete with it, and it certainly doesn't help when the new concept of ID, armed with the latest scientific discoveries, comes along questioning established scientific "theories" that keep them at the highest rung of the hope and fear ladder.

It used to be that religion and science didn't compete, and they shouldn't today. But they do, and there's only one difference from yesterday and today - government money."
Marc comments about "armed with the latest scientific discoveries" when speaking of ID, but I don't recall him enunciating ANY of them.
Overall, I found that Marc took an indefensible position and used the only tools available to defend it, emotional appeal. ID isn't the antithesis of evolution, so it shouldn't be taught as a counter to evolution. Even Marc conceded that natural selection was compatible with creationism AND ID. Zachvac was thrown a bone and he chewed on it sufficiently to get to the marrow. Good job and thanks to both Marc9000 and Zachvac for their time and efforts on an interesting topic.
JP

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

Congratulations zachvac! Maybe in the future another subject will come up and you and I can go at it again.

(I'd still like to see unkerpaulie's comments)

sorry for being late with my judgement

this was a very interesting and civilized discussion. both of you kept on topic. it was established from early in the debate that marc was in the affirmative position and zach was challenging the assertion, and both roles were played well.

marc held the view that intelligent design should be offered under the science curiculum in schools. he started off with a definition of science, but tried to point out that science itself was inadequately defined and suggested that what passes for school science isnt really science, since we dont really know what science is or should be. i think zach handled this well with the definition and emphasizing on the methodoly rather than results of science as the most importing aspect that should be taught. both debaters agreed here

one point that marc raised that i felt wasnt properly addressed by zach was the proposal to further research for evidence that would support the id hypothesis. the scientific method starts off by observing a phenomenon. a possible explanation for the phenomenon is formed; this is the hypothesis. to determine if the hypothesis is true or not, controlled experimentation must be done. this is where id hits a wall. as far as we know now, there is absolutely no way to reproduce the conditions under which a creator designing a life form, or any physical phenomena for that matter. also, you dont test a hypothesis by actively seeking only information that will prove it true. you simply look for information. the hypothesis being true or not should be a natural process, not a guided one. the scientist shouldnt "want" the hypothesis to be true. id, however, starts off with a hypothesis (i.e., the unuversal was designed by an intelligent creator), and those that pursue the truth about that cannot "want" it to be true, but must let the facts decide the final verdict

finally, one of the points that zach raised that had marc a little beaten was the statement that id was already being taught in schools as a hypothesis only, and so was abiogenesis, as a hypothesis only. i took it that marc was quite surprised by this, as it undermined a major part of his argument. but it is true that abiogenesis is only a hypothesis. however, there are universities currently actively working on trying to reproduce the hypothetical conditions under which abiogenesis could take place. the facts will determine, at the end of the experimentation, whether abiogenesis is at all possible, and then more theories will be offered to explain how it could be possible as the origin as life on earth. and of course there is a lot of funding, both federal and private, behind this.

i would just like to point out, on the subject of funding, which marc raised, government grants for the purpose of furthering scientific knowledge are not by any means restricted based on religion or theism. well documented scientific proposals are considered for grants. so far, there has never been, in history, a scientific theory that demonstrated the intervention of a supernatural being. but we cannot assume that this means that funding is anti-creationist or atheistic. if a procedure could demonstrate a supernatural phenomenon in a replicable and consitant way, then by all means it would be in science textbooks right along with electricity and gravity


in all, my verdict is that zach won the debate. he showed not only that id should not be studied in schools as science, but neither should abiogenesis, or any other untested or unproven hypothesis, no matter where the motivation comes from. well done to both of you

__________________
when man tried to understand nature, theism was born
when man tried to understand God, atheism was born