Intelligent Design

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Intelligent Design

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB and Zzyzx have agreed to debate the topic "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:I am more that willing to debate whether "Intelligent design" is a valid concept. Care to try that in Closely Monitored Head to Head?

I accept.
Excellent. I suggest that the topic be "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"

Do you find acceptable the title and:

1. Ten posts total (five each)
2. No personal comments
3. All claims and statements to be substantiated or formally withdrawn / retracted
4. Bible is not to be considered any more authoritative than any other book (similar to C&A)
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #11

Post by ST_JB »

So considering the unwillingness of Zzyzx to take side or position on this debate, I would like to propose the following format, instead:

Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal


Round 2: Establish the grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal

Round 3: ST_JB's case as to why the ID concept is valid to explain the universe and all its content is more probable and is better supported than "Zzyzx'x dissenting opinion". (1 Post)

Round 4: Zzyzx's case as to why "his dissenting opinion" is better supported and adds more weight to discredit the ID claim. (1 Post)

Zzyzx is not required to present competing theories for ID but is expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof for his dissenting opinion as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules', to wit:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.



For ROUND 1, Post 1, my presentation shall be comprised of the following agenda:
  1. Declaration of Debate Position.
  2. What Intelligent Design is and what it's not
  3. Why ID is a valid concept to explain the Origin of the Universe and its contents
  4. Presentation of Arguments in support to my claim that ID is a valid concept
ROUND 1, Post 1
  1. The subject that Zzyzx and I agreed upon for debate is "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"and I will be taking the affirmative. Honestly, I don't have a single idea what Zzyzx will be arguing for in this debate. And so I will be waiting for his declaration when his turn comes.

    What I've noticed about from most people of whom I've argued with on ID, have limited understanding at best and fallacious or misrepresenting ID arguments at worst in dealing on the subject. And I will tell you, it's a total disaster to be entangled into an argument with these kind of people. I hope that will not be the case in this debate as it is a common knowledge to all regular members of this forum that my opponent is a former academe of earth sciences himself while serving as a geology professor in an (unspecified) university. With that, I would say say will get into the business without deviating from the topic.
  2. Declaration of Debate Position.

    I believe that ID is viable and a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe, for reasons that I hope to address in this particular debate.

    What I've noticed about most people whom I've argued with on the topic of ID, have limited, if not fallacious understanding of the the very core of ID really is. And I will tell you, it's s a disaster to engage in an argument with those kind of people. I hope that will not be the case in this debate as it is a common knowledge of all who regular members of this forum that my opponent is a former academe himself. With that, I say will get into the business without deviating from the topic.

    So to get going, I would like to define what ID is all about first and what it is not. In this case, we can avoid any misconception from my opponent and avoid addressing the wring issue. I would be very specific in this debate and will only address the counter-claim my opponent will make against ID. I will never entertained but will only point to any missed point made by my opponent.
  3. What Intelligent Design is and what it's not
    1. Intelligent Design is...
      I do believe that with the evidence that we have, points to only one direction - that is, our Universe and all its contents, including life, existed not by mere chance or accident or random acts of nature, rather by the aid of an intelligent agent. That the Universe and life in particular, display characteristics that only an Intelligent Mind can perceive. Thus, I will be arguing that such a system that is so complicated, specific and precise cannot be a product of such undirected act or event unless such act or event is directed by and as foreseen by an intelligent mind.
    2. Intelligent Design is not...
      1. a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.
      2. The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987
      3. intelligent design is a new "faith-based" alternative to evolution-an alternative based entirely on religion rather than scientific evidence.
      4. creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools.
      5. is not based upon ignorance or religion but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
      6. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
    3. Why ID is a valid concept:

      The concept of Intelligent Design, uses design inference in its approach to seek for evidence of design in the physical world.

      The Design Inference
      -



      What is the evidence for design?
      1. Information in Biological Systems - Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
      2. Molecular Machines - The Bacterial Flagellum
      3. Origin of First Life Chemistry
      4. Cosmic Fine Tuning - Is it possible
        that properties of our universe are determined by our existence?
        Or put differently, is our universe fine-tuned for life? (The Accelerating Universe, Page 237)
      5. Rational Thought and Consciousness
    4. Presentation of Arguments in support to my claim that ID is a valid concept
    I. Understanding How Intelligent Agents Operate Yields a Positive Case for Design
    1. A designer conceives a purpose.
    2. To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan.
    3. To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions.
    4. Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.



But I am not here to attack Darwinism as my opponent clearly demonstrated his unwillingness to present alternative explanation for the origin of the universe and by that I am quite sure that he will surely not bank his arguments on Darwinism as his alternative explanation though, in one of many instances, I've noticed that he outlandishly criticized another member for objecting Darwinism. He (Zzyzx) then went on to blab that he and his camps (atheists) had gone through extensive studies on Darwinism more than secondary level and castigated the other person for lacking the same knowledge. How sad it is that such a person who considered himself well equipped with advanced knowledge or understanding on Darwinism just let an opportunity like this to present his favored explanation of origin back down. Okay, that may be not my concern. But I only brought up the incident out of curiosity as to why such a person would decline and refuse to present an idea he claimed to be knowledgeable more than the average individuals. He even defended that idea in various threads. Well, just wondering. :shock:
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #12

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB wrote:I am more than willing to make this debate happen once and for all.

So considering the unwillingness of Zzyzx to take side or position on this debate, I would like to propose the following format, instead:
Correction: Zzyxz is unwilling to present an alternative "explanation" for origin of the universe, and makes no claim to KNOW how the universe originated.
ST_JB wrote:Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal
Accepted
ST_JB wrote:Round 2: Establish the grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal
Accepted
ST_JB wrote:Round 3: ST_JB's case as to why the ID is more probable and is better supported than "Zzyzx'x dissenting opinion". (1 Post)
Change to read "Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
ST_JB wrote:Round 4: Zzyzx's case as to why "his dissenting opinion" is better supported and more probable than ID. (1 Post)
Change to read "Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
ST_JB wrote:Zzyzx is not required to present competing theories for ID but is expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof for his dissenting opinion as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules'
Rejected
ST_JB wrote:I would like to add the following;
Rejected
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Finally!!!!

Post #13

Post by ST_JB »

Zzyzx wrote: Correction: Zzyxz is unwilling to present an alternative "explanation" for origin of the universe, and makes no claim to KNOW how the universe originated.
I have realized that. ;)
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal
Accepted
ST_JB wrote:Round 2: Establish the grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal
Accepted
ST_JB wrote:Round 3: ST_JB's case as to why the ID is more probable and is better supported than "Zzyzx'x dissenting opinion". (1 Post)
Change to read "Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
ST_JB wrote:Round 4: Zzyzx's case as to why "his dissenting opinion" is better supported and more probable than ID. (1 Post)
Change to read "Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
As you like. ;)

Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Zzyzx is not required to present competing theories for ID but is expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof for his dissenting opinion as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules'
Rejected
Okay. Rejected for what reason?

I am merely asking you to observe forum rules. To reject this particular rule means to debate without valid arguments/proof/evidence.

Are you saying that you are not willing to support your "whatever" dissenting opinion? hhmm :-k

Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:I would like to add the following;
Rejected
Rejected for what reason?

This will just be an add-on, a normal template for any debate to limit the discussion within the scope of the topic. I have accepted your terms, structure for debate and it will still be good.

Do you consider this 'add-on' as unfavorable condition for your style?


Again, what is wrong with this:
Scope and delimitation.

1. Scope - Although ID has the claim for this debate, the discussions need not to be confined to attacking the concept of ID alone but also to the following, as well:

a. Intelligent Design as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents, and

b. The validity of the dissenting opinion as equally valid for consideration.

The use of available school of thoughts and techniques should not be compromised. In other words, debaters can use available resources, provided that the essence of the discussion be sustained. Any objection to arguments/proof/evidence as a form of fallacy or violation of forum rules shall be evaluated by a non-partisan third party (moderators) upon submission of complaint.

2. Delimitation - This debate and all of its proceedings shall cover ID and its valid dissenting arguments only.

Participants may employ all known school of thoughts / scientific techniques / science or logical analysis in support to their arguments.

Should there be anything else that Zzyzx would like to add, please do what is necessary.

What are you up to, Z? hhmm :-k
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Finally!!!!

Post #14

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Zzyzx is not required to present competing theories for ID but is expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof for his dissenting opinion as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules'
Rejected
Okay. Rejected for what reason?
I do not feel required to specify reasons for rejections; however, it is poorly worded and is directed at one participant rather than both.
ST_JB wrote:I am merely asking you to observe forum rules. To reject this particular rule means to debate without valid arguments/proof/evidence.
"Follow Forum Rules" should apply to BOTH participants.

Suggested revision: BOTH participants are expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof of any claims or statements they make.
ST_JB wrote:Are you saying that you are not willing to support your "whatever" dissenting opinion?
I doubt it is me who will have difficulty supporting a position. We shall see (as shall readers).
ST_JB wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:I would like to add the following;
Rejected
ST_JB wrote:Rejected for what reason?
Again, reasons for rejection are not required; however, it is poorly worded, with misstated position, vague and unclear.
ST_JB wrote:This will just be an add-on, a normal template for any debate
"Normal template for ANY debate" doesn't ring true. I have been engaged in many debates and have not encountered this supposedly "normal template".
ST_JB wrote: to limit the discussion within the scope of the topic. I have accepted your terms, structure for debate and it will still be good.
Your acceptance of my proposals is your decision.
ST_JB wrote:Do you consider this 'add-on' as unfavorable condition for your style?

Again, what is wrong with this:
Again, Poorly worded, misstated position, vague and unclear.
ST_JB wrote:Scope and delimitation.

1. Scope - Although ID has the claim for this debate, the discussions need not to be confined to attacking the concept of ID alone but also to the following, as well:

a. Intelligent Design as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents, and

b. The validity of the dissenting opinion as equally valid for consideration.
Restate to "Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
ST_JB wrote:The use of available school of thoughts and techniques should not be compromised. In other words, debaters can use available resources, provided that the essence of the discussion be sustained.
Replace with: "Evidence presented shall be verifiable regarding truth and accuracy"
ST_JB wrote:Any objection to arguments/proof/evidence as a form of fallacy or violation of forum rules shall be evaluated by a non-partisan third party (moderators) upon submission of complaint.
Replace with: Any objections or complaints by either participant will be evaluated by Moderators -- whose rulings shall prevail.
ST_JB wrote:2. Delimitation - This debate and all of its proceedings shall cover ID and its valid dissenting arguments only.
Change to: "and Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept"
ST_JB wrote:Participants may employ all known school of thoughts / scientific techniques / science or logical analysis in support to their arguments.
Replace with: "Evidence presented shall be verifiable regarding truth and accuracy"
ST_JB wrote:Should there be anything else that Zzyzx would like to add, please do what is necessary.
Add:

Structure of debate: Closely moderated by two moderators. One moderator will be invited by each participant from the list of admin and moderators. They will closely monitor for content as well as rule infraction and will make comments as they deem appropriate.

Strict adherence to forum rules http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Strict adherence to "Guidelines for C&A subforum" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741 Specifically, the bible shall NOT be regarded as authoritative and shall not be cited except to show what the bible says.

1) NO personal comments allowed.

2) Debate is to consist of a total of five posts each – alternating

3) No post shall exceed 1000 words including quotations

4) A response is to be posted within five calendar days (120 hours) unless delay is agreed

5) Substantiate all claims and statements challenged OR acknowledge inability or unwillingness and withdraw the claim or statement in the next post.

6) Discuss ideas, not personalities or participants. Do not make any personal comments.

7) Standard English definitions of words shall prevail (no special, personal or esoteric definitions allowed). Merriam Webster Dictionary shall prevail. Any exceptions shall be by mutual agreement in advance.

8) Circular reasoning is not permitted (no work shall be cited to prove itself correct)

ST_JB wrote:What are you up to, Z?
Demonstrating that ID cannot be shown to be a valid, verifiable concept to explain the existence of the universe and its contents.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #15

Post by ST_JB »

Alright Z, you have made some remarkable commentaries again in your last post. But let's consider that as parts of your debating style.

It's time to walk the talk and put all the nonsense away.

Agreed structure and guiding principles/proceedings to be used for this debate.

Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal


Round 2: Establish the grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal

Round 3: ST_JB's Arguments as to why the ID is more probable and is better supported than Zzyzx'x " grounds" for rejecting it. (1 Post)

Round 4: Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept. (1 Post)

BOTH participants are expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof of any claims or statements they make as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules', to wit:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
[/quote]


Scope and Delimitation:

Although ID has the claim for this debate, the discussions need not to be confined to attacking the concept of ID alone (by claiming to have "critical & analytical" questions as a position to hold against ID) but also to the validity of Zzyzx's grounds for rejecting the ID concept:

1. Scope:

a. Intelligent Design as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents;

b. The validity of Zzyzx's "grounds" for rejecting the ID as a valid concept.

2. Delimitation - This debate and all of its proceedings shall cover ID and its valid "grounds" for rejection only.

3. Add-ons rules for debate:

a. The use of available school of thoughts and techniques should not be compromised. In other words, debaters can use available resources, provided that the essence of the discussion be sustained. Or as Zzyzx puts it: "Evidence presented shall be verifiable regarding truth and accuracy"

b. Any objection to arguments/proof/evidence as a form of fallacy or violation of forum rules shall be evaluated by a non-partisan third party (moderators) upon submission of complaint. Or as Zzyzx puts it: Any objections or complaints by either participant will be evaluated by Moderators -- whose rulings shall prevail.

c. Participants may employ all known school of thoughts / scientific techniques / science or logical analysis in support to their arguments. Or as Zzyzx wants to put it: "Evidence presented shall be verifiable regarding truth and accuracy"

4. Debate to be closely moderated by two moderators. One moderator will be invited by each participant from the list of admin and moderators. They will closely monitor for content as well as rule infraction and will make comments as they deem appropriate.

5. Strict adherence to forum rules http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Strict adherence to "Guidelines for C&A subforum" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741 Specifically, the bible shall NOT be regarded as authoritative and shall not be cited except to show what the bible says.

In Addition to the above, the following shall also be observed:

1) NO personal comments allowed.

2) Debate is to consist of a total of five posts each – alternating

3) No post shall exceed 1000 words including quotations

4) A response is to be posted within five calendar days (120 hours) unless delay is agreed

5) Substantiate all claims and statements challenged OR acknowledge inability or unwillingness and withdraw the claim or statement in the next post.

6) Discuss ideas, not personalities or participants. Do not make any personal comments. **This is same as No. 1.

7) Standard English definitions of words shall prevail (no special, personal or esoteric definitions allowed). Merriam Webster Dictionary shall prevail. Any exceptions shall be by mutual agreement in advance.

8) Circular reasoning is not permitted (no work shall be cited to prove itself correct)
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #16

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB wrote:It's time to walk the talk and put all the nonsense away.
Agreed. You may begin when you are ready.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Introduction

Post #17

Post by ST_JB »

Since everything seems been sorted out, Zzyzx and I are now ready to begin our debate proper on "Intelligent Design as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents".

Before I proceed, I would like to thank Zzyzx for making this debate happened despite of some of the disagreements we have had on how this debate should proceed and for choosing me as his debate partner for this particular topic. It would be an honor for me to debate toe to toe the best debater of the year (2008) and considered by many in this forum as an eloquent atheist for his ability to form trenchant inquiries/questions on Christian belief. With that, I believe that Zzyzx will make this debate highly interesting than what mere rhetoric questions can offer.

As I've said elsewhere, I agreed to debate Z, not to win but to test my knowledge and understanding on the things I hold dear - things that I consider essential to my well being - my faith. The same thing can also be said why I am in this particular forum-debating.

Oddly, this particular debate, especially the position that I will argue for will not be centering on what I believe in as a Christian. My arguments will focus not about the evidence written some 2000 years ago, rather what the evidence inferred from what science has uncovered in recent years. What has transpired in the beginning can be best explained by what is left for us to examine - the physical reality (where for some folks is the only reality and i'll be drawing my arguments from this reality from here on).

So to my debate partner and to all the folks who are following this debate, bear in mind that Religion is not the foundation of my affirmative response on the debated subject, rather what the evidence inferred regardless of my religious affiliation and inclination. That should be clear.

On my next post, I shall be presenting my Position on the subject and my arguments in support to the validity of ID as a concept to explain the origin of the Universe and its contents, most specifically, in the beginning of life.

I have to admit that it may take sometime for me to formulate my arguments since ID is a broad concept - it covers a whole lot of subjects under its roof. That being said, I am expecting Zzyzx to give me a little allowance of leeway to articulate my arguments in a fashionable way.

With that, I am closing this short Introduction and shall present my formal arguments for ID in my next post. :)
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Post Reply