MyThoughtWorld.com

2 Responses to “Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate:Part II”

1. Lance Ponder on Jun 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   I cheated. I took the time yesterday to watch the entire series. I think both sides argued well. If I weren’t convicted of my beliefs, however, I think I would have found the rhetoric of the evolutionists very convincing. A straight ID vs Evo fight is a tough one. The most convincing arguments against evolution were not even touched by the ID’ers. The arguments for young earth creation weren’t part of the discourse. Berlinski was good, but the opposition did their best to make him look foolish. The moderator certainly seemed to favor the Evos. That was pretty obvious, but to the Evos they wouldn’t have said so. He always gave them the last word.

2. Chad Phillips on Jun 12th, 2008 at 3:52 am

   I think your analysis is accurate, Lance. The Evos came away with the edge, though, it wasn’t because they were more substantive. It was because they had better packaging, a biased moderator, and it seemed the tough questions never really came out. I thought that was strange. Also, it seemed to me that the ID team was on the defensive most of the time.

   It was interesting that the ID group wanted to talk science but the evolution group kept playing the religion card, preferring, instead, to bring up God at every turn. They also took great pride in the fact that ID Theorists apparently have no alternative theory to evolution. Somehow the fact that there’s no naturalistic alternative has all the supernatural power to make Naturalist Evolution true by healing its fatal wounds. I fail to see how the lack of an alternative validates a theory which is utterly without the power to do all its followers say it can. Anyway, I was disappointed. We should’ve prevailed. We didn’t. This round goes to the Evos. The only bright lining to this thing is that at least now there is some discussion between the two groups.

Leave a Reply