Victor Bjerrum (PRO)We need to teach kids both sides of an argument and let them decide themselves, it is therefore important that intelligent design is taught i schools. If we don't teach them this the school is not neutral anymore and it picks a side over the other which can't be healthy for any kid. It also educates school kids on why people believe in what they do and can let to broad understanding between people. I don't see any downside to this being taught since it shows that people believe in different things and shouldn't be shamed for that.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-23 12:32:26
| Speak Round
Bi0Hazard (CON)In this debate, I am arguing that, as of now, Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools.
Definition
Intelligent Design- the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
Teach- to cause or help (someone) to learn about a subject by giving lessons.
Schools- I will be arguing for Public Schools.
Arguments
1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science.
Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach
Intelligent Design as a theory is new.
Here is what it states:
"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."
Website: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Many Intelligent Design theorists still believe that evolution occurred, but that life began from an intelligence. Some believe an Intelligence may have guided some of the process instead of natural selection. There is much disagreement on what the designer designed among Intelligent Design Theorists. The theory just states that certain features of living things and universe are best explained by the design of an intelligence. The theory does not explain who the designer is, how the designer designed, or what the designer designed, just that there was a intelligent designer that did something in the far past. Evolution is a developed theory/model that explains all of the evidence. Intelligent Design is not a model, but just holds that a designer design certain things(which are not fully agreed on yet).
Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state
Like I said in the last argument, Intelligent Design is really only about a designer, and every Intelligent Design Theorist believes it is God, so it is really a way to push God on others in schools. This would promote Christianity/biblical creationism which would violate the separation of church and state, creating bias towards other religions. This would be discrimination towards other religions and people who practice them rather than to be fair. Contrary to what my opponent said, this would not be neutral. A better way to be neutral on beliefs in school is to teach the flaws of evolution with the evidence, which would make it less neutral instead of pushing a religious belief in our schools.
Intelligent Design is not science
Since intelligent Design is just about a designer designing certain features in the past, it is not observable or testable. No evidence can fit into it. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] 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."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses."
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Intelligent Design can only be accepted on faith, which should be kept out of school. It can not be supported by evidence. Evolution can be supported because it makes testable predictions. Intelligent Design makes one main assumption, that life came from an intelligence, which is not testable or supportable. Therefore, ID is not science.
Response to opponent
I already pointed out that it would be better to teach the flaws of evolution than teach ID, so I believe I responded already.
Thanks for reading.
I am looking forward to my opponents response.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-23 16:49:39
| Speak RoundVictor Bjerrum (PRO)Arguments and flaws
1. Reliable source?
2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument
3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities
1. Reliable source?
I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school.
2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument
"The theory does not explain who the designer is, how the designer designed, or what the designer designed, just that there was a intelligent designer that did something in the far past" here you say that this theory don't evolve around a specific god and it can therefore be anyone. "Like I said in the last argument, Intelligent Design is really only about a designer, and every Intelligent Design Theorist believes it is God, so it is really a way to push God on others in schools. This would promote Christianity/biblical creationism which would violate the separation of church and state, creating bias towards other religions" why would it create bias against other religions if the theory dont imply that there is a specific creator but rather that we are created by some kind of intelligent being the theory is more of an answer to how rather than who and it therefore dont revolve around certain specific religions[1].
3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities
I believe that the best education is an education were you don't just see one side of a debate, the youth need to know why people think like they do and they also need to know why that might not be plausible because of scientific reasons. The youth needs to form their own opinion and i don't think intelligent design have so many flaws it should be considered unteachable, even if it has a lot of flaws the youth need to learn about those and then make their decision on whether it is plausible or not.
Source:
[1] "https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/01/evolution-curriculum-intelligent-design-school" by Alastair Noble
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 01:59:47
| Speak RoundBi0Hazard (CON)In this round, I will respond to my opponents rebuttals.
Rebuttals:
1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God.
3. Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities.
Wikipedia is an unreliable source
Here is what my opponent said, "I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school."
First of all, I didn't copy and paste a lot of information from wikipedia, just a quote in one of my arguments, the rest was not from wikipedia.
So, my opponent believes wikipedia is unreliable because it may be a biased source, however, there is a source in his arguments that says that ID should not be excluded from the study of origins(sounds biased to me), the point is, I don't see anything wrong with using a source that counts for you in a debate. Instead of focusing on reliability, I will focus on the truth of the statement. The quote from wikipedia I offered said that ID offers no testable or tenable hypothesis. This is true since it explains life came from a designer which can not be proven. The ID movement is really mostly about critiquing Darwinism and placing a designer as the explanation. My opponent never responded to that argument I made, so I won't go on it anymore.
Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God
It is true the theory of ID doesn't explain God as the designer, just that there was one, but if you look at it closely, ID is an argument for God.
If there was a designer in the past, then that designer must have come from somewhere, ID advocates argue that intelligent life could never have originated from natural processes, so intelligent life must have came from another intelligence. At some point, there has to be an uncaused cause(or undesigned designer), in other words, "God". This would have to be an eternal being, God is the only reasonable explanation. If ID is in school, it would be used as an argument for God, which would bring religion with it. This would violate the separation of church and state by bringing a religious argument into the schools teaching our children. Like I said in the last round, a better way to be neutral would to teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence in schools. Since ID is mostly just a critique of Darwinism(which places a designer as the explanation), we would be teaching more than half what ID theorists already propose by teaching kids to criticize evolution. The rest of ID is just that there was a designer and the only reasonable explanation for it would be God, which could bring religious beliefs into the classroom.
Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities
My opponent says students shouldn't just be taught one side of a debate, but both sides. The problem is, one side is religious in nature, and the other is based on scientific evidence. Religious arguments are not supportable by science, so they should stay out of the classroom. Evolution is supportable by evidence and is testable, so it should be taught and criticized. Intelligent Design is not scientific, so it should remain out of schools. Religious beliefs should be practiced out of school, and schools should give more of a choice in deciding whether evolution is a fact. Teaching something that is too undeveloped and religious in nature does not belong in school, especially in a secular state. Since ID is only about a untestable designer, it can't be taught about scientifically and criticized. This is not the best education.
Thanks for Reading
I am looking forward to my opponents response.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 07:38:46
| Speak RoundVictor Bjerrum (PRO)Final comments
1. Why ID is not Christianity
1. Why ID is not Christianity.
While it is very true ID can be used as an argument for Christianity legitimization it can also very well be used as an argument for Aliens, Allah even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The theory just states that humans have an intelligent designer that knew what he/she was doing and made us perfect. In fact you don't have to be religious at all maybe you just think aliens created us, which don't make you religious. Sure it will give some christian students some arguments, but i would much rather have them here it in a non biased environment like a school were the teachers shouldn't pick a specific side but rather point out the flaws in each of the arguments, than if they were to go on the internet and read something a really pro ID theorist has wrote .
2 Why ID should be taught. OK so my opponent says that we should remove all none scientific subjects from schools, but should we then remove all teaching and insight into religions in schools. I don't think removing stuff like that is the right way too go since it's of great importance to learn about other culture and to learn why people think the way they do. It is also important to learn about scientific subjects, but if we want a less biased world we should also be taught about how religion works and what the different religions teach so we don't end up with people making assumptions about other peoples beliefs.
Thanks for the debate to my opponent, and best of luck.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 08:48:06
| Speak RoundBi0Hazard (CON)Opponents arguments:
1. Intelligent Design is not Christianity.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to understand the religious culture.
Intelligent Design is not Christianity
My opponent argues that the designer in ID can be anyone, so it's not bias towards a particular religion. I argued in the last round that the only reasonable explanation for the designer in ID is God. If life could not have came as the result of natural causes and instead had an intelligent cause, then at some point there has to be an undesigned designer, which would be God. This would provide support for monotheism and religions, which would bring discussions of God and religion in our schools. This would violate the separation of church and state which is beneficial to our multicultural society, adding a theory that is religious in nature to our schools will bring debate on people's religions. Kid's are very impressionable, which may get some kids to believe in something contrary to their families beliefs. This would make many parents insecure with our public school system. Kids would want to know who the designer is, which would expose them to the religious arguments. A better way is to teach flaws in evolutionary theory instead of enforcing a religious argument in our schools. My opponent doesn't understand how much this would promote religious beliefs.
Intelligent Design should be taught to understand the religious culture
In the first round, I provided a definition of Intelligent Design. ID is supposed to be a scientific theory. My opponent went with the definition I provided without providing their own definition. So, I am assuming my definition in this debate. My opponent never tried to dispute my argument about ID not being science. Instead, my opponent says we should teach religion and cultures. So I believe my opponent is saying that ID should be taught under religion rather than science. The problem with this is that it fails to fall under the definition I provided and what he or she seemed to accept. Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific theory, which would belong in the science class. I argued before that ID wasn't really science, so it would fall under pseudoscience(presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the scientific method). Pseudoscience doesn't belong in our science class(since it really isn't science), but doesn't belong in our cultural/religious history class either since its presented as science. ID is really supposed to be the scientific(really pseudoscience) argument for God's existence. Learning about the history and beliefs of religions would be great for our schools. But presenting an argument for God(which is what ID is) is promoting the monotheistic religions, not just learning about it. This would violate the separation of church and state by promoting religions.
My overall Case
Thanks for reading
Vote CON!
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 13:49:23
| Speak RoundBi0Hazard (CON)Interesting, I didn't know there was reply speeches at the end.
Summary
My arguments
1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.3. Intelligent Design is not science.
My opponents arguments
1. Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would make teaching truly neutral.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples views.
Rebuttals
Round 2
Opponent
1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design would not create bias towards other religions.
3. Intelligent Design would help students understand both sides and their arguments, so they know why they believe what they believe.
Mine
1. Wikipedia quote is true.
2. Intelligent Design implies the existence of God and would create a bias towards the religions, undermining the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is a religious argument and is unscientific.
Round 3
Opponent
1. Intelligent Design does not imply Christianity or God.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples religious views and culture.
Mine
1. Intelligent Design is an argument for God which would create bias toward religious beliefs and undermine the separation of church and state.
2. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, so it doesn't belong in our schools.
Our models
Mine
Teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence but keep Intelligent Design out of public schools since its religiously bias.
Opponent
Teach both sides, it will make the schools more neutral and will let them decide for themselves.
Overall, your the judge of this debate, so the winner is up to you.
I hope you vote CON.
Victor Bjerrum, thank you for debating with me.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 14:52:13
| Speak RoundVictor Bjerrum (PRO)Summary
My opponents arguments
1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science.
My arguments
1. Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would make teaching truly neutral.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples views.
Rebuttals
Round 2
Mine
1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design would not create bias towards other religions.
3. Intelligent Design would help students understand both sides and their arguments, so they know why they believe what they believe.
Opponent
1. Wikipedia quote is true.
2. Intelligent Design implies the existence of God and would create a bias towards the religions, undermining the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is a religious argument and is unscientific.
Round 3
Mine
1. Intelligent Design does not imply Christianity or God.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples religious views and culture.
Opponent
1. Intelligent Design is an argument for God which would create bias toward religious beliefs and undermine the separation of church and state.
2. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, so it doesn't belong in our schools.
Our models
Opponent
Teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence but keep Intelligent Design out of public schools since its religiously bias.
Mine
Teach ID as a way to make pupils understand how other people think letting the school give them the information intead of the internet. ID dont in any way imply that its about Christianity it could also imply aliens, allah or even the flying spaghetti monster.
I hope you vote PRO
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 15:40:07
| Speak Round
Judge: Crow
admin
Judge: gavstone21
The definition I provided from intelligentdesign.org is the most accurate one.Posted 2016-06-24 08:37:28
I was talking more about using a definition on intelligent design from intelligentdesign.org Posted 2016-06-24 08:35:20
@Stag
I wasn't going to use a source, but then I decided to use wikipedia, it doesn't make my argument worse either unless I use it as a center to my argument. Posted 2016-06-24 06:00:35
@DHS15698
Watch your sources.
It might be better to use no sources at all, then to use sources that could easily be called out as biased or non-credible. It doesn't reflect well on the actual argument being made. Posted 2016-06-24 00:26:41