>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Debating
Bookmark topic
The problem is that neither evolution or intelligent design theories can be either proved or disproved 100% so I suspect that debate can't be resolved as such. Not sure if that can or can't be used in the debate!
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:06:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 02:06:00, Sammy_boy wrote:
The problem is that neither evolution or intelligent design theories can be either proved or disproved 100% so I suspect that debate can't be resolved as such. Not sure if that can or can't be used in the debate!
But then if one takes that approach one can say that one should teach any theory that is postulated, which can't be disproved. Surely you would agree that one has to draw a line and teach that, which has the best evidence? How are we supposed to educate people if we teach them a theory on an equal footing with a theory that is more scientificaly credible?
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:13:37
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
Many scientific theories have holes in them or aren't conclusively proven, should they also not be taught? Should only that, which we consider to be absolutely undisputable be taught? Your use of the word 'brainwashing' seems to indicate that you are biased against it, which is hardly the hallmark of a good scientist, who should consider every possibility. If you cannot disprove Intelligent Design then shouldn't it be offered as a possible explantion?
Many scientific theories do have holes in them, this is true. However, all of these theories have been prooven beyond reasonable doubt and all are accepted by all but a few controversial scientists. The theory of Intelligent Design cannot be prooved anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt and has very shaking framework based on beliefs, not proof. This is not the sort of thing that we should be teaching children in a subject twinned with truth. This is where my claim of brainwashing comes in. Brainwashing occurs when an authority replaces one's fixed beliefs with an entire new set which are not justified, merely the belief's of the authority.
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:13:55
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 02:13:55, Alec wrote:
Many scientific theories do have holes in them, this is true. However, all of these theories have been prooven beyond reasonable doubt and all are accepted by all but a few controversial scientists. The theory of Intelligent Design cannot be prooved anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt and has very shaking framework based on beliefs, not proof. This is not the sort of thing that we should be teaching children in a subject twinned with truth. This is where my claim of brainwashing comes in. Brainwashing occurs when an authority replaces one's fixed beliefs with an entire new set which are not justified, merely the belief's of the authority.
This is a good rubuttal. You identified the most important point and went straight for it; that Intelligent Design is based, at its heart, on a premise of faith and not science. This is hard to argue with, because one can say that one has to believe in some form of diety to accept Intelligent Design, whereas one can believe in a diety or not and still accept evolution.
The rebuttal of the brainwashing point was good, but you didn't really answer the charge that you are biased against Intelligent Design. Whilst you set out what you meant by brainwashing, your opponent could still say that you are simply biased towards his point of view and could claim that you won't even consider it because of that bias.
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:19:48
Edit :
Quote
But surely my argument was good enough to mean my judgement isn't biased but backed up?
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:24:40
Edit :
Quote
@Alec
You may think so, but a good opponent will use very trick in the book to make your argument look weak. This is one reason why one should always aim to present one's points in as objective a manner as possible. You may be forwarding a certain argument, but if it looks like you are doing so because you are biased towards your opponent's view then he can simply say that you are acting out of bias.
The language you use is very important. A term like 'brainwashing' has a very negative connotation. It is wise to consider the words you use, sometimes a word that doesn't have quite as negative a connotation, but still has the same menaing can be used.
Having said all that, you did set out your response in a rational manner and you argued from that point of view. You didn't resort to attacking religion itself or picking flaws with someone's personal beliefs.
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:32:44
Edit :
Quote
i'd like a critique on this then:
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 05:27:02
Edit :
Quote
I would certainly love to join this debate.. however I wud like to make a suggestion,
pls make the topic more flexible where people all over the world can understand and knows whats the topic is about. I dont live in UK so i do not know what BBC or ITV4 or what you guys are talking about... lol. Thats why I see only the same 4-5 people replyin and living in that area... hehe..
Peace.
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 06:36:39
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-23 05:27:02, gelfen wrote:
i'd like a critique on this then:
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
I think this debate sums it up nicely
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 10:07:51
Edit :
Quote
This is a good read!
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 11:22:19
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
