Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Intelligent design

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:48, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Current revision (02:23, 17 May 2010) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Write Subquestion here...)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""|
===Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?=== ===Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?===
-|} 
- 
-{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" 
-|__TOC__ 
|} |}
Line 12: Line 8:
|- |-
|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| |bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"|
-===Background and Context of Debate:===+===Background and context ===
|} |}
Line 22: Line 18:
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Write Subquestion here...===+=== Is intelligent design science? ===
|- |-
Line 36: Line 32:
*'''[[Argument: Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested| Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested]]''' *'''[[Argument: Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested| Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested]]'''
-But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution? 
- 
-"Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. 
- 
-The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few." 
- 
*'''[[Argument: Intelligent design offers no scientific, predictive value| Intelligent design offers no scientific, predictive value]]''' *'''[[Argument: Intelligent design offers no scientific, predictive value| Intelligent design offers no scientific, predictive value]]'''
-"One of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not offer any new explanation or observation about these complex structures that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide. The observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example." +*'''[[Argument: Intelligent design closes scientific inquiry| Intelligent design closes scientific inquiry]]
- +
-*'''[[Argument: Intelligent design closes scientific inquiry| Intelligent design closes scientific inquiry]] the idea that “some things are too complex” is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated into evolutionary theory. +
Line 53: Line 41:
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===Write Subquestion here...===+=== Write subquestion here... ===
|- |-
Line 66: Line 54:
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===Write Subquestion here...===+===Pro/con sources:===
|- |-
Line 83: Line 71:
*[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html Penny Higgins. "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science, and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a science curriculum". Retrieved 1.30.08] *[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html Penny Higgins. "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science, and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a science curriculum". Retrieved 1.30.08]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html "Claim CI001: Intelligent design theory is science." The Talk Origins Archive.] *[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html "Claim CI001: Intelligent design theory is science." The Talk Origins Archive.]
- +*[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science." Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Retrieved 1.30.08]
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===References:=== +==External links==
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"|+
-===Related pages on Debatepedia:===+
-|-+
-|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"| +
-===External links and resources:===+|}
- +[[Category:Intelligent design]]
-|}+[[Category:Evolution]]
 +[[Category:Science]]

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?

Background and context

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Is intelligent design science?

[Add New]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Write subquestion here...

[Add New]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[Add New]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources:

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No


External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.