Official TOC Round 1

My opponent claims that using multiple sources for definitions is "skewed"; I hardly see how. I tried to find the most reliable and comprehensive definitions, even if that meant going to a different source to get them. My opponent's definitions of natural selection and evolution are acceptable. However, his definition of intelligent design is not. It significantly differs from my own definition; since my definition is from the Discovery Institute, the primary advocate of intelligent design, mine is preferable. "First of all, ID can coexist with the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and abiogenesis. What my opponent does not realize is that an Intelligent Designer could have used any of these methods to create the universe." This conflicts with the traditional definition of intelligent design. As seen on the Wikipedia page [1], intelligentdesign.org [2] and the Discovery Institute website [3], ID clearly conflicts with omnievolution. Additionally, the United States court has ruled that intelligent design was religion [4]; it is clear from the court ruling that ID is distinct from Darwinian evolution: "the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection." However, even if ID does not conflict with omnievolution, it still should not be taught as science. If my opponent does concede that omnievolution is an adequate explanation (which he seems to do in half of his case, but not the other half), then an intelligent designer is an unnecessary entity. Even if intelligent design does not conflict with omnievolution, there is still no evidence whatsoever that such a designer exists. For example, imagine a theory that says that gravity is caused by magical fairies pulling on objects. It is still completely consistent with the theory of gravity, but does that mean we should teach it? Of course not. If my opponent concedes that omnievolution is an adequate explanation, he also concedes that there is no evidence that an intelligent designer exists; his evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (in the "validity of ID" section) relies on the invalidity of omnievolution, and in particular big bang theory. This evidence is flawed, but that is another matter. "We develop opinions through controversy. Without controversy, there is no growth." 1. ----I agree that controversy is healthy. However, on this particular issue, it is not a good idea. For example should we, in addition to the theory that the earth is round, teach that the earth may indeed be flat? Most students would probably believe it; after all, the earth appears awfully flat. Students may end up believing that the earth is flat, even though in actuality it is not. For this same reason, we should not teach ID: students may end up believing it, since it seems more obvious than omnievolution even though omnievolution is supported by far more evidence. 2. ----If we teach ID, for the sake of fairness we must also teach every other creation theory: that humans came from an island floating in the sky [7]; that the world is an egg that was laid by a supernatural bird [8]; that The Ancient one came through the reeds and created everything [9]. This is not only very practically difficult, but an all-round bad idea. My opponent wants us to decide which one is right, and only teach what is "right." Is that only applicable to science and religion? What about politics? "A monarchy is the only sound state of government. We have always done it like that, we always will." Where would we be right now if that was taught and enforced back during the 1700s?What if Walmart is the "right" way to shop? Are we only allowed to shop there? What if McDonalds is NOT the "right" way to eat? Are we not allowed to eat there? The point is that my opponent presents an EXTREMELY dangerous idea which ought to be dismissed. This is an inappropriate analogy. Politics does not have a clear right and wrong answer, nor does choice of store or restaurant; science does. Teaching intelligent design is more analogous to teaching that 2 + 2 = 5: it is just flat-out wrong. Should we, as an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4, teach that 2 + 2 = 5? ========= Validity of ID ========= "Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter." Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter. "So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be?" Big Bang Theory is a perfectly adequate explanation and does not include any unnecessary entities: Matter has always existed. This may seem like a strange concept; but it is true, because according to Big Bang Theory, time itself came into existence at the big bang. 'Before' the big bang, there was no space and there was no time. Matter did exist in a sense, but it was all compressed into a singularity. [5, 6] Back to the original point, the existence of matter is not evidence of a designer. I reiterate: intelligent design is not testable. "If matter cannot be created naturally, it must be created supernaturally. In other words, an Intelligent Designer is necessary." Other than the false premise that matter must have been created supernaturally, this relies on the unproven premise that a supernatural being has to be intelligent. "Any possible outcome could be the mark of a designer. No matter what happens, it can be said to be the result of intelligent design. ID cannot be proven false, and is therefore not science." This is a non-unique argument. This applies every bit as much to The Big Bang Theory as it does to ID. The big bang is NOT an appropriate explanation for just anything. For example, the ability of birds to fly can be blamed on a designer ("an intelligent being is holding up the birds") but it cannot be blamed on the big bang. Additionally, the big bang is falsifiable. If we could see infinitely far in the universe as opposed to only 13-or-so billion light years out, it would prove that the universe has existed eternally, disproving big bang theory; if there were more heavy elements than light elements, it would be strong evidence against big bang theory; if galaxies were not moving away from each other and were instead still, it would prove that the universe was not expanding, disproving big bang theory. ======== Conclusion ======== The first half of my opponent's case requires that we assume the existence of an intelligent designer with no evidence. The second half of my opponent's case, which is mutually exclusive with the first half, tries to provide evidence of ID but misrepresents Big Bang Theory and only comes up with false evidence based on faulty premises and conclusions. This has been an enjoyable debate so far, and I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org... [3] http://www.discovery.org... [4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjUL8f6IFE [7] http://www.cs.williams.edu... [8] http://www.cs.williams.edu... [9] http://www.dreamscape.com...