Evoltution v. Intelligent Design

The first point con offers is that the idea Darwin puts forth that "as each generation passes, the next one will be more robust and more fit to live" is un-biblical. I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate. Using the Bible to prove biblical views true is the same as using a Spiderman comic to prove Spiderman exists. Second, my opponent claims that evolution cannot account for the fact that many or all governments have certain laws that are the same, and that the existence of God and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" in their own right is necessary to account for the existence of laws and a certain moral consensus. However, this is a completely false statement. What accounts for the creation of laws is the capability of the human race to socially evolve (social evolution is a subconcept of evolutionary biology and therefore correspondent to evolution as a whole [1]), to agree upon certain things, to form conventions and rules that are deemed beneficial, and to improve them as time passes. To begin with, laws and rules did not always exist. There was a time when there was no rule or consensus preventing people from hurting each other. However, at a certain point in history it was realized that individuals could better pursue their interests if they cooperated instead of perpetuating conflict, and to assure it would be so, they created rules we call laws, and empowered certain members of their communities (what we would call the government) to enforce these rules. The point of transition from a lawless "state of nature" to a society with primitive laws and governments is what we generally recognize as being the beginning of civilization. Thus, the answer to my opponent's question is this - we evolved to the point of "not doing these horrible deeds" when we realized they do more harm than good. At the beginning, these first rules were not morally motivated, but rather pragmatically motivated. Later, as society evolved further, and with it, philosophy and the study of the nature of humanity, man developed the idea that something might be "universally right" or "universally wrong" and the concept of morals was created. Modern laws are thus a combination of morals and pragmatism. Also, the fact that society evolved from not having laws, to having primitive laws and finally to having certain universal, moral and pragmatical laws is consistent with the idea that, as my opponent puts it, "as each generation passes, the next one will be more robust and more fit to live". After all, society did evolve from being simple to being increasingly complex. Another thing I wish to comment on, which follows naturally from what was said above is that, yes, according to evolution, right and wrong do not exist - not in their own right. The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are concepts developed by man to designate what societies consider to be beneficial/justified, or not so. The idea of what is right or moral is not universal, and after all, different individuals will consider different things to be moral depending on their ethnicity, religion etc. Also, one cannot categorically claim that the incentive not to harm others must come from religion. I, for one, do not feel inclined to harm other human beings; however, I am irreligious. The difference is that most irreligious people believe are that morals stem from our own realization of what is right or wrong rather than having a supernatural force mandate it. After all, the ability to develop the concepts of "right" or "wrong" is a consequence of social evolution, and this social evolution is what puts us on top of the evolutionary chain. This brings me to my next point of refutation. Exactly the fact that we, as humans, are intellectually superior to all other lifeforms is the reason that we are on top of the chain. Supremacy of the stronger over the weaker when it comes to relations between different species is necessary to maintain natural balance, especially when it comes to the food chain. As said in the following quote, ". .. the food chain is an important part of biodiversity because it keeps ecosystems in balance. If one part of the food chain becomes extinct, it can affect all the other plants and animals". [2]In the same way as a cat would eat an insect, or a tiger would eat a wild boar or an antilope, humans, as omnivores, pray on other animals due to the fact that they're superior in the food chain. This is no matter of "hypocrisy" or "morals", this is a matter of basic natural balance. Therefore, exactly the opposite of my opponent's reasoning is true - the most vehement advocate of evolution would also be the most vocal supporter of maintaining the principle of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to the food chain. Finally, my opponent claims that "seven billion objects" couldn't have evolved simultaneously and at the same rate. This claim simply serves to show how badly my opponent fails to understand evolution. Firstly, we cannot monitor evolution on an individual level, but rather on the level of the entire species in a huge amount of time (millions of years). The evolution of man started with the divergence of primates from other mammals, which occured 85 million years ago. [3]These "seven billion objects" my opponent speaks about are currently living beings that are all going to be dead in at most a hundred years, which is far too little time to observe evolutionary differences. Also, the reason why it cannot be said that certain humans are "more evolved" is that all humans belong to the same species - Homo sapiens. Certain individuals differ from others in individual characteristics, just as any living being, but on a large scale, when it comes to races and the entire species, there are no evolutionary differences. Another thing I must mention in this point is that the fact that human evolution is considered to have begun in Africa would mean a difference in evolutionary traits, because, as time progressed, a part of the human species migrated from Africa to other continents, but they all continued to evolve at the same rate, irrelevant of their location. Racism therefore isn't a byproduct of evolution per se, it's a byproduct of misunderstanding evolution. It's a byproduct of certain individuals or groups taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the masses, and using a scientific theory as an excuse to further their political creed. Yes, evolution can be "dangerous" when misunderstood, but so can every idea ever invented by man. This is not an issue of the idea of evolution, or whether or not it is true in its own right, it is an issue of how successful our educational system is at teaching facts and preventing misinterpretation. Therefore, to claim that racism is a direct consequence of evolution is simply a non sequitur. After dealing with my opponent's case, I will now present my own positive content. Firstly, evolution is a consistent theory. Millions of pieces of evidence were found in support of evolution, constantly and consistently filling in certain gaps in the theory. It must be taken into account that if only one piece of evidence was found to contradict the theory of evolution, due to its nature, the theory would have come crashing down. Such a piece has not been found, and the chances of it being found are becoming increasingly astronomical as more and more evidence is being found in support. Also, it must be pointed out that evolution is a scientific theory, in contrast to its alternative (creationism), which isn't a theory, but isn't a hypothesis either, due to the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, and creationism is neither. [4]Therefore, evolution is:a) The only scientifically acceptable explanation availableb) Supported with by an incredible amount of evidence To offer certain examples, atavisms [5] are one of the many proofs of evolution we have witnessed through scientific research. Atavisms, defined as evolutionary throwbacks, are certain traits that are considered obsolete. For example, the human appendix is an atavism, as well as the appearance of "tails" in certain individuals (humans possess a tailbone, the coccyx, which can, in rare cases, grow into a tails). Such appeareances were also documented in human embryos. Defunct genes - genes that were used for a certain purpose at a certain point in time, but are, due to the advancement of species, now unnecessary - are also proof of evolution and of how evolutionary traits change. A few other examples are the following [6]: A fossil named Archaeopteryx has many features in common with reptiles but also, like birds, shows evidence of feathers. The genetic code of all life on Earth is written in the same chemical building blocks. Some genes from the bacterium E. coli have sequences that are similar to genes found in humans. In the 1940s, infections by the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus could be treated successfully with penicillin. Today, populations exist that are completely resistant to natural penicillin, as well as to partially modified penicillins like methicillin. These populations, called MRSA, are very challenging to modern medical professionals. More examples can be found in the given source, but the character count prevents me from posting them all. Finally, I'd just like to make a short remark on the following fact - this debate is a comparative debate. It is not only a debate on whether evolution is true, but it is also a debate on whether intelligent design is true. When it comes to a comparative analysis of the two explanation, evolution definitely takes the win due to sheer preponderance of evidence, and this is another reason why you should vote pro in this debate. I stand firm and undaunted in proposition. (Sources will be posted in comments due to lack of space)