Intelligent design is a rational explanation for the origin of species

Thank you for providing such an excellent response. You fairly pointed out a lack of definitions which I previously took for granted. Most of this response will be to clarify my opening arguments. To save space, I will not reference definitions quoted from Wikipedia. They are implied. Abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. In this case, I will define life as the first viable cell. In the theory of evolution, the first viable cell would be the common ancestor of all taxa. To be explicitly clear, it is understood that the simplest cells observed in nature today are not considered to be that common ancestor. Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Plausible - a likely reality given the available information. Information - what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things Although Con claims my argument breaks down in the absence of definition of information, the word only appeared three times in my opening argument, and only in two contexts. The first time I used the adjective "meaningful". In a naturalistic sense, nothing has meaning. Meaning is always given by an intelligent source. For example, the letters I am using to write this very argument have meaning, and so do the words. Someone who has no exposure to English or the English alphabet would not understand the meaning given to it by those who communicate using English. In my second use of the word information, I used the adjective "chemical" and further expounded, saying "chemical information required to produce a living organism." I have trouble seeing how Con requires a definition to the word information in either of these cases, but I hope this paragraph has been satisfactory. Con falsely asserts that I, Pro, advocate for evolution. I would like to point out that Pro recognizes the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. "Pro appears to be advocating for Evolution but pushes Intelligent Design for the very first life-form." "If Pro is advocating for the DNA code, then he has already conceded this argument given he has already advocated for evolution..." My statement was, "In fact, there is a branch of ID that embraces the Theory of Evolution [12]..." That is not to say that I am part of that group. It is to say that ID and macro-evolution are not mutually exclusive. The explicitly stated reason for my statement was to show that ID and macro-evolution are not mutually exclusive, which is a pre-conception many readers may have. I would like to remind Con that, "The BoP for Pro (myself) is to show that there are rational reasons to believe that life on earth was designed by an intelligent source using principles or methods that may be applied outside the scope of the origins of life." Con seem to believe that the BoP for Pro (myself) is to show that ID is more likely than abiogenesis. You can see this in his formal logic section: "P1) Life is either arose purely naturally, or designed intelligently P2) Not purely naturally C) Life was designed intelligently" It is clear from the quote above that the BoP for myself is not to show ID to clearly be the answer to the origins of life. My only BoP is to show that it is a reasonable stance to take. That is to say, that a well informed, rational, sane individual may conclude that life originated from an intelligence source based on observations independent of bias from religious or philosophical position. Continuing on that thought, I alluded to a list of individuals who meet those qualifications and reached those conclusions. Due to length constraints, I did not provide detailed accounts for more than one of those individuals, an argument which Con completely ignored in his first rebuttal. Also, "The BoP for Con is to show that arguments in favor of ID are irrational." Con attempted to meet this burden using formal logic. "P1) Life is either arose purely naturally, or designed intelligently P2) Not purely naturally C) Life was designed intelligently" Con then showed P2 to be an assumption. I would like to point out the double standard Con uses to support abiogenesis. Additionally, "The BoP for Con is to show ... that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation to the origins of life on earth." Con must use a similar formulation to reach the conclusion that abiogenesis is the most plausible solution. P1) Life is either arose purely naturally, or designed intelligently P2) It is possible life arose purely naturally P3 ) A purely natural solution is more rational than designed intelligently via Occam's Razor C) Life arose purely naturally ----- To address these one at a time: P1) Life is either arose purely naturally, or designed intelligently We agree, this is an axiomatic statement which logically stands by itself. P2) It is possible life arose purely naturally This will be a long rebuttal. Con presented common theory that is the driving force behind the many theories of abiogenesis I stated in my opening arguments. Although I did not lend much space to it, I did mention, as I quoted from talkorigins, that there are several stages in the theory of chemical evolution that led to the creation of the first common ancestor which was also a cell. What Con presented is mostly hypothetical. Con's presentation only addressed up to the replicating polymers stage of abiogenesis [1]. He likely ends the theory here, because the rest is still being worked out today. To quote the pro-evolution website, talkorigins: [4] "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown. [1]" I assert that modern chemistry does not provide a model by which to assert abiogenesis as possible, let alone probable. P3 ) A purely natural solution is more rational than designed intelligently To assert this statement, Con must also assert a bias which he has not yet supported. Ironically, the evidence used to support this argument is a negative argument which Con explicitly claims are weak. C) Life arose purely naturally Given that neither P2 nor P3 have been shown true, the conclusion has not been shown to be true. ----- If logically rational is the ability to assert a claim without making a logical contradiction, then I agree that a belief in abiogenesis is logically rational. There is theory behind it. However, it is yet to be shown by modern science to be a possibility in practice. Con has the BoP to show abiogenesis to be the most plausible solution to the origin of the first life on earth. This argument is a rebuttal against that BoP that Con has as previously stated. Con claims not to see the argument given for ID, and has provided an inaccurate formal logic presentation of it. I shall provide a new formulation of it. This is a modified version of the one presented by Steven Myer [2]. P1) Intelligence, as of now, is the only known cause of complex functionality P2) It is possible to demonstrate that high volumes of functionally specific information can be produced by intelligent causes P3) The simplest conceptual cell contains high volumes of functionally specific information C) From the perspective of known cause-and-effect structure of the world, the intelligent design is the most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the functionally specific information present in a theoretical simple cell. I am out of space to move forward with the reasonability of ID. I would like Con to give positive evidence that the first living cell was not the product of purely naturalistic causes and show ID to be illogical, which was stated as the BoP for Con before acceptance of the challenge. 1) http://www.talkorigins.org... 2) Stephen C. Meyer (2010). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne. Retrieved on 2011-12-03. "But the argument"takes the following form..." --AK 21:39, 5 December 2011 (EST) 3) 4) http://www.talkorigins.org...