Intelligent Design

My opponent champions the interesting topic of Intelligent Design (ID), a theory that essentially states that, because of the complexity of the objects in the world around us, there is evidence that they are not natural, but rather designed. It is important to note from that outset that my opponent seems to have wasted his first round of argument. He assumes my burden is to show that evolution a more plausible theory. Unfortunately for him, my burden is to simply show that Intelligent Design is not a "very creitable theory" (sic). Also, it is important to note that my opponent has not actually made any arguments in support of ID, but spends his argument attacking the theory of evolution. But I will respond to some of his points anyway... >> "However there is no evidence of the first organism to start that change [evolution] off." Well there's no evidence of the first "intelligently designed" organism either, so this point is rather moot. More to the point, there are in fact several candidate organisms, comprising mostly of very simple, self-replicating organic structures... not even necessarily a full cell. Also, simply because the theory of evolution runs into a roadblock (and 'lack of information' may be a better term) on this point does not mean that it is suddenly less reasonable than a theory that states that life was designed by someone/thing... >> "Even the most basic prokaryotic cell are too complex for the proteins create any basic structure." As noted above, I'm pretty sure that an organic molecule does not need to actually be a cell to be capable of replication. If I recall my high school biology, one theory is that the present pieces of cells (i.e. the organelles) were at one point in time separate living structures in their own right. >> "And if there is any chance at all for amino acids to congeal to a protein to form a cell. That cell will need the perfect environmental conditions for it to reproduce. Like the temperature" Agreed, but it only has to happen once... and consider the chance that perfect range occurring once in the, what, about 6 Billion years the earth has been around? That's really not a low chance. It's actually pretty high. Lots of ID proponents forget that while it is statistically unlikely that a given planet has life, it as probably statistically LIKELY that planets of the class that earth belongs to DO have life - i.e. if we find (living) life on Pluto, it's a much stronger case for ID or Creationism than complex life on Earth, a planet that is relatively likely to develop life. *********************************************************************** Going along with the comments above, ID is actually not a very plausible theory at all. In effect, ID holds that because things are very complex, they appear to be designed, and things that are designed require a designer. The main flaw in this argument is the contention that complexity establishes design. In a system where what works best survives (i.e. evolution), the surviving organisms we are able to study after hundreds of millions of years of evolution are the most suited and best-performing structures of their kind that have ever existed. In other words, organisms appear to be complex and well-designed, because we do not see the failed structures. A famous argument for ID is the example of stumbling over a watch in a field (The Blind Watchmaker anyone). What the author fails to appreciate is the difference between objects and living creatures. There is no other way for a watch to be made but by a watchmaker. Living creatures have an alternate possibility for their origin. Furthermore, to argue that if there IS a designer, that this designer is intelligent, is simply absurd. Many creatures, humans certainly being no exception, have such egregious flaws that, if designed, were done so by an idiot. It is not as though one found a watch in a field, but rather like one found one working watch on a continent covered in unworking, partially finished, poorly constructed, defective watches, and some gizmos that don't even resemble anything at all. ID is simply an attempt to reconcile Creationism and modern science by having God take credit for something that naturally happened. The theory is an awful notion based on the flawed criteria of "irreducible complexity" - an idea that pretends structures are far more advanced than they are. NEGATED.