Official TOC Round 1

I will first offer my own definitions. I will use a single, unbiased source. You will notice that my opponent uses different sources for each of his definitions. I find this a bit skewed. Intelligent Design (ID) -- "A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance." http://dictionary.reference.com... Natural Selection (NS) -- "The process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations." http://dictionary.reference.com... Theory of Evolution -- "A scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals." http://dictionary.reference.com... Evolution -- "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.reference.com... ====================== On Burden of Proof ====================== "Conflicting ideas should not both be taught; scientists should work out which is correct, and then the correct one should be taught. " I certainly do dispute this. There are multiple problems with my opponent's statement. 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. He/She/It could have created it through "the explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter." The only thing required of ID is that everything came into existence via a Designer, rather than by chance. The options listed by my opponent COULD HAVE been used by a/the designer. Second, opposing ideas SHOULD be taught! We develop opinions through controversy. Without controversy, there is no growth. We learn nothing through indoctrination, as my opponent suggests. Imagine hearing this as a seventh-grader: "Evolution is fact, there is no other option. Intelligent design is absurd, do not consider the possibility." Schools are supposed to enlighten, empower, and allow for the free flow of new ideas. That flow is what advances society. Third, this is a great example of a slippery slope. 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. I believe I have rattled off on one sentence for long enough. To conclude, I would like to stick to the resolution. If I show why ID should be taught in schools, I win. If my opponent shows why ID should not be taught in schools, he wins. ====================== Validity of ID ====================== "A theory is only considered science if it is testable with the scientific method [1]. ID is not testable, however. Since the designer is by necessity external, there is no sign that the designer was once here. Observation and experimentation is impossible." I can show you evidence that a Designer was/is here. Touch your arm. Touch your computer. Touch the floor. Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter. According to the Law of Conservation of mass, matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but simply re-arranged. So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be? The answer is rather simple. If matter cannot be created naturally, it must be created supernaturally. In other words, an Intelligent Designer is necessary. Since you exist, there is completely valid logic backing ID. Since ID is backed by logic as well as science, it becomes a theory. Just as The Big Bang remains a theory, so does ID. If the Big Bang is taught as a theory, then so should Intelligent Design. "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. ========================== Validity of Omnievolution ========================== As has been stated, omnievolution can coexist with ID. Because of this, I feel no need to dispute the validity of omnievolution. If the need should arise, I am prepared to answer. Due to the unfortunate character limit, I will not have space to address it this round anyway. In conclusion, I have shown ID to be a valid theory. Because of its status as a theory, the Big Bang theory has no more precedence to be taught over ID. Since my opponent argues that the Big Bang Theory should be taught, ID should be taught as well. Thank you. ==================== Sources ==================== http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mlive.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...