Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Resolved: A Scientist can give a rational argument as to Intelligent Design that the majority of other scientists can and should agree with, regardless of religious beliefs. The Burden of Proof is on me, since I make the claim, as to whether a Scientist can and should properly make the correct argument as to Intelligent Design having any useful purpose in Science. I accept my friends definition of ID, and wholeheartedly agree with the definition. I thank my friend for accepting this debate, and thank those who want to read through it for voting and reading. This is my first debate on this website, and I hope I can convince people of this important topic, and how it is best used outside of Religious Dogma. Thank you all for taking the time, and having the patients for this debate. Intelligent Design: There are many historical figures that accepted the premise of an Entity, greater than ourselves, created the Universe, and designed everything within it. My opponent rightfully gives the definition of Intelligent Design as "Intelligent Design: The idea that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity." Our historical figures, especially in Philosophy and Science, have agreed with this concept for many millennia. Even to the point that whole civilizations were planned around this idea. For a fact, Plato himself acknowledged this. ( http://plato.stanford.edu... ) There are also numerous other Historical Figures that acknowledged that life, or the Universe must have been created as the laws of chance tell us that it"s a mathematical impossibility for the existences to have been spontaneous. Intelligent Design is not a new concept, nor is it something that should be randomly dismissed. If we are to study the History of Science, we must accept that our ancestors were some kind of Creationists, in one form or another. While there has been considerable disagreement between zealots on both sides, because there truly is no middle ground on this issue, about the nature of creation, we can all agree that Science has, until more recently, always looked at the design to show how great the Designer is. From the Great Pharaohs and before, people have consistently acknowledged that we are not intelligent enough, and most likely never will be, to design a whole universe, at least in terms that we presently understand creation. And by rights, even if we could design a whole universe, we would become the Creators ourselves. Appearances Can Be Deceptive While we are discussing Intelligent Design, we should also note that scientific interpretations can be biased based on Belief Systems. For example, some famous Atheists have come to astounding revelations about the nature of the Universe. They claim that a "Big Bang" created the Universe by chance, ignoring any and all other possibilities, based on nothing more than their personal belief systems. (Steven Hawking being among these people.) They claim that substances and energy were created through that known event without any outside influences. This takes more faith to believe than Intelligent Design, however. In his book, Steven Hawking discusses why there are two sets of Laws. Known Laws, or Laws of Nature, and Laws of Man"s Intelligences. The Laws of Nature cannot be changed (manipulated, yes, but never changed). The Laws of Man"s Intelligences are subject to change, depending on the subject. Hawking even admits that he doesn"t have all the answers, as do Creationists. So, since we know that appearances can be deceptive, we must understand that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. (Laws of Thermodynamics http://www.ask.com... ). Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did this Universe form? There are three possibilities. First: Energy was first designed by an Atemporal Being Second: Random Chance Happenstance Third: A multiversal explosion happened in another dimension. However, this leads to the same conclusion as the first two arguments. First Close While its evident that we are here, the main arguments are either through chance and happenstance, or through something designing us. These are the only two viable options to choose from, if you are going to be serious about the discussion. We can and should challenge either of these ideas, because that is how rational and intelligent people behave. We should never take things at face value and determine that chance and happenstance created something so perfect and lasting as this universe, especially when the evidence of Design is so broad and telling. This concludes my part in round two. I readily await my opponent and friends reply.