CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
10
Intelligent Design Creationism
Debate Score:17
Arguments:13
Total Votes:17
Ended:05/20/10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Intelligent Design (6)
 
 Creationism (7)

Debate Creator

ricedaragh(2494) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Intelligent Design VS Creationism

The Evolution vs Creation debate has been covered ad nauseum.

I have noticed while reading the posts on these debates is that there is a clear distinction between those that support Intelligent design in a deistic slant, and those that support the Judeo Christian Teaching of the one true God creator of the heavens and the earth as it is and try to use scientific evidence to bolster their position.

The intelligent design theorists do support evolution as a mechanism for explaining the variety of life that exists around us. They reason however that the Universe could not have come about by chance.

As an atheist I have no say in these matters but wish to gain an insight into the workings of both arguments when juxtaposed.

 

Intelligent Design

Side Score: 7
VS.

Creationism

Side Score: 10
Winning Side!
2 points

Creationism is based mainly on the major religions and the belief that God created the Earth and Man in his image. Shit like that.

Intelligent Design is at least an interesting philosophical ideal. It's not a science, but its parameters are wide and are not subject to just being "god created it".

In a nutshell, Intelligent Design claims that the nature, evolution, and everything in the Universe did occur exactly as science explains it, but it was not by chance or accident; there was a designer or some shit like that. Whether it be God or some kind of supernatural force of energy, that's up for interpretation. It does not defy scientific theory, just merely gives its own philosophical input.

Do I believe it to be true? No. There's no evidence to support it. But it certainly is interesting. Plus, as stated, it's up for interpretation. The answer doesn't have to be God, and who knows, maybe there is intelligence behind the function of nature.

As of now, though, we shall continue science to find the answers behind existence. Use philosophical merely to ease our mind.

Side: intelligent design
Mahollinder(900) Disputed
1 point

Bullkaka. The Kitzmiller vs Dover trial showed that ID and Creationism are the same thing. Also, your description of the ID hypothesis is incorrecto. The line of reasoning diverges quite substantially from evolution and doesn't conform with science or what the science concludes.

Side: Neither
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

What you may be thinking of is the whole "intelligent design creationism" fiasco that occurred about 23 years ago. But advocates of Intelligent Design tend to not be creationists; they believe in evolution and shit like that, they just trust in a creator instead of chance.

Plus, the currently accepted form of intelligent design has been around for hundreds of years. The name itself suggests a designer of the natural world, and not a mere "on the seventh day" stuff that Creationists try to put onto us.

Either way, if you really believe that the term intelligent design was created in 1987, at least accept that those who currently claim they believe in intelligent design are referring to their disbelief in an accidental existence.

As I stated, I do not believe in ID because there is no evidence, but I'm not going to go on a witch hunt and call it creationism just because some people are holding a 23 year old grudge against it.

Side: intelligent design

Although many say they are the same thing, I don't think so.

Creationism is the belief that the events in the bible (or other Religious Documents) took place in order to create the Universe, while I believe Intelligent Design simply means a being created the earth/universe.

The most likely out of the two is Intelligent Design.

Side: intelligent design
1 point

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

For those that aren't aware, the FSM was created by a group trying to get intelligent design out of the classroom. They made up their own version of intelligent design (in this case the designer was, as you might have guessed, a flying spaghetti monster) and argued that if Judeo-Christian creationism was taught then Pastafarianism should be as well.

They have a point. Intelligent design is something I believe in, but it has no place in a science book. I think the appropriate way to handle the divide is to set aside time for philosophical discussion on whether or not science and religion can coexist. Does evolution disprove God? Why or why not?

Side: Flying Spaghetti Monster
4 points

They're the same thing. ID is just creationism in scientific clothing to try and sneak it into science classrooms.

Google the "Wedge strategy". The Discovery Institute invented Intelligent Design in reaction to court rulings that they weren't allowed to teach creationism in schools because it was clearly a religious precept. So if they weren't allowed to teach creationism they were just going to give it a new name, pretend it was something different that was scientific by loading it up with impressive sounding technical jargon, then sneak it in through the back door.

Unfortunately the morons published their plan in an internal document and it leaked to the public. Everyone has known about it for years, and years, and years, but they keep trying anyway.

Side: No difference
abubakar31(176) Disputed
1 point

did you ricedaragh created the debate ? It seems very similar to the propaganda you spout. Nobody that is reasoned is going to read and respect an article by some nobody that like you cant be bothered to spell check their stuff or realize that WHEN THE CAPS LOCK IS ON IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING AT THEM!

Getting back to the article it is badly written and ill informed, it defies nothing and is an example of the ridiculous ramblings of an idiot, one that thinks he is intelligent (the most dangerous kind).

Side: intelligent design
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

Oh, nice you copy, pasted my point from your debate and put my name in instead. Excellent. Plus you didn't re-type the first sentence correctly. Also do you realize your point is tagged as intelligent design. Do you think any of this through?

Side: Neither
gcomeau(536) Disputed
1 point

What the hell are you ranting about? I've read what you posted three times now and can't figure out how the hell it is supposed to relate to anything I said.

For one thing... none of the words in the post you are replying to was capitalized.

For another, I didn't post an article.

And why are you talking about ricedaragh?

Are you having a stroke or something? Or is this just more of your usual non-capacity to communicate coherently?

Side: No difference

I am aware that these are technically the same thing, I had noticed in all of the evolution vs creation debates that there was a divide in the responses of those that opposed evolution, given that all sides should have a say I figured that if both sides were sure of their position that they could debate this subject. I realize now that it is something that will not be debated as they have nothing really to say (nothing of interest any way). It seems now that the only word to get these people jumping is evolution. I was curious about how they would argue their positions. As I had nothing to add to this debate I just watched.

Side: Neither