Quote:
Quote by: LuDaCrIs  I think we should start off with defining the topic more specifically, so that we won't argue about it throughout the debate.
We've already established that you will take the creationist/ID side. I mentioned that I would like to argue its merits as a science. Whether or not it deserves a place in our schools science class' might not have been such a good idea on my part earlier. I certainly wouldn't mind debating that as well, but I feel we should establish whether it is science before schools even consider it. Also, it might be hard to settle on which curriculum we'd use; all of the states have similar, but not identical, ones.
I think we should agree on a definition of science. I tend to adhere to this explanation:
Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of falsifiable data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
If you have any objections please let me know.
Let me know what you tend to define as creationism or ID. I think that is important as well. Sometimes people interchange the two.
Should we go one post each, for the debate? |
I agree to the outline you have presented so far. We should be polite if someone oversteps those boundries but should attempt to stay within those boundries.
Creationism would be the title for a study program that would be formulated for the purposes of those interested in finding out if any of the evidence collected by science is supportive of the idea that a original intelligence created life on earth or the universe, and how that was done.
Intelligent Designer is a name given to that original source. Finding evidence of designs in nature that make sense would be one of many kinds of evidence, used to make that case. Sometimes going outside of just science and employing logic or reasoning. The title "intelligent designer" is also used in place of other names for a "god" so that the material can be presented in a way that is not supportive of any given religion. Sort of a secular name for what some believe is a divine identity. That is my personal explaination which might not conform to what some of the big organizations that are promoting their version might say.
I cannot find a single webpage link that contains a difinition for which I can agree with as Creationism (totally) So I made up my own.
I hope all this is not too confusing?
I believe that a Creationist presentation must not sway away form the presentations of sound science unless they can present a more logical way to interpret the evidence used by science.