The Third Option

Something that has often ruffled my feathers in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate (as to the extent that one could call it a debate) is the name of the debate itself. The topic is often framed in a way that attempts to set up a logical statement:

Either A or B
(Either Evolution or Creation)

The simple fact that the debate is framed that way is giving the ID side an advantage it shouldn't rightfully have. The first premise is already in place and apparently accpeted as true. Framing the debate with it's first premis already in place sets up one of two syllogism:

Either A or B
A
Therefore Not B


and


Either A or B
Not A
Therefore B

What you find is that either side will attempt to establish the truth of their own second premise. Each side has to either show that the side they support is true or that the other side is false.

This is where the problem arises. The Intelligent Design camp is under no burden to prove that ID is true to claim victory in the debate, and you almost never see ID proponents offer up evidence in their favor. Instead they attempt to undermine the opposition. They deliver their complaints about the theory and their understanding of the evidence. If their opponent does not have the exact examples that counter their complaints, the ID proponent will take a victory lap.

On the Evolution side, you will see the opposite occur. Most often than not the Evolution proponent will make claims to evidence that support the theory and ask (and never receive) evidence that contradicts it. The entire debate becomes a squabble about the details of evolutionary theory and the outcome relies entirely on the Pro-evolution debater's off the cuff knowledge of specific species and mechanisms.

The route that the ID proponent takes should not even be available. The dichotomy presented by the debate is a false one. It is a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. It should be written as thus:

Either Evolution or Not Evolution

The way the debate is usually framed it assumes that there are no other options. It assumes that if one is debunked then the other wins by default. That simply is not true. So remember that the next time someone tries to score points for Creationism by pointing at gaps in the fossil record. Even if Evolution was invalidated by new evidence, it wouldn't necissarily mean that there is an Intelligent Designer. It doesn't even bring them one step closer to establishing that they're right.