The Best Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Debate on the Web
I'm Jeffrey Davis, and I'm having an ongoing friendly debate
with Jim Edwards, a work colleague of mine, about the merits of Evolution and
Intelligent Design. Before and during this debate, I've read a lot of stuff about the
controversy on the web. I've found several good sites, but I've never really seen a
good, solid debate that discussed most of the major issues without getting sidetracked
or degenerating into a flame war. When I realized that this had become the best ID vs
Evolution debate that I knew of, I thought I'd post it on the web so others can see it
and comment on it.
Background
Just to clarify exactly what is being debated here, this all started one day at work
when I believe Jim was reading a news article about the controversy currently going on
in Kansas. He said something to the effect that, "Intelligent Design is proposed by
people who know nothing about science." I have also read several news articles about
Kansas recently, which piqued my curiosity and led me to read through several
Intelligent Design websites. I was quite surprised by how much sense they made, and
how much it seemed that most of the scientific facts really were on their side. I
mentioned this to Jim, and we began an email discussion.
We debated for a while whether Intelligent Design could fairly be called a scientific
theory. I proposed a defintion of the theory that I think is suitable to be taught in
public schools. We eventually agreed that it could be called a theory, like string
theory, but not a Theory, like the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity.
Once we agreed on that, I began my formal presentation of why I think that science
generally supports Intelligent Design better than Evolution, and why its supporters
know at least something about science.
The Debate
I have put each successive reply on a separate page to make it easier to follow. We
are doing this debate in email form, and have used the common practice of inserting
replies to specific statements in the middle of the original text. So, in an effort to
make it clear who is saying what I adopted the following convention: everything that
Jeff has said is in bold, and everything that Jim has said is in italics. Everything
that is new on each page is in blue.
The arguments are presented exactly as they were written, except that, where either of
us cited a web page, I have created a link to that page. The first page is a
concatenation of two emails, because I thought of some more that I wanted to say before
Jim had replied to my original statement.
Jeff's Opening Statement: 4 (or 5) evidences of Intelligent
Design
Jim's First Response: Let's Get Detailed!
Jeff's First Response: Why not?
If you have any questions or comments for me, please email me at
orojeff@gmail.com