evolution is not true!!

Although my opponent offered no response for this round, I would still like to comment more deeply on some of his statements in the first post, particularly his appraisal of intelligent design. Intelligent design, which primarily argues that life is too complex to be explained solely in terms of naturalistic phenomena, is essentially a pseudoscience. Its proponents often try to masquerade it as a scientific theory, but it lacks the requisite elements, especially on its inability to offer testable propositions and to make relevant predictions. By positing a supernatural agent, intelligent design also undercuts the strong materialistic proclivities that have long characterized modern scientific theories. As an intellectual idea, it is not new at all. Design arguments are nearly as old as philosophy itself. Let me now examine two of (perhaps) the most fundamental principles of intelligent design: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. The former idea claims that certain biological systems cannot be divided into simpler parts without losing functionality. Michael Behe, the creator of irreducible complexity, has sometimes used a mousetrap analogy to explain the basics: if a part of the mousetrap, like the spring, was removed, the mousetrap would no longer work. If irreducibly complex systems existed in nature, they would provide a devastating blow to evolutionary theory by falsifying its general presumption that more complex biological systems can arise from less complex ones. Darwin himself recognized just as much. However, we have no evidence that irreducibly complex systems exist. All of Behe's quasi-innumerable candidates have been shown to be wild goose chases. Specified complexity, an idea by William Dembski, maintains that certain patterns or systems have such a high level of ordered integration that they must necessarily be guided processes. To better understand the proposition, consider the following analogy: an illiterate monkey randomly typing letters reveals complexity, but not specificity – the jumbled letters do not form a coherent message; on the other hand, a Shakespearean play, or any comprehensible piece of writing, possesses both complexity and specificity. Dembski would then argue that something like a Shakespearean play must have been the creation of an intelligent designer, of an agent with a rational purpose in mind. Dembski provided a mathematical-like definition of specified complexity, but one that is complete hogwash - the vast majority of all mathematicians and statisticians regard his work on specified complexity as ludicrous. What's the fundamental problem with his idea? It is basically nothing but a rehashing of the way things actually are - it does not offer anything new. It's a much longer way of saying, "things are this way because they are this way." Additionally, there is no standardized version of what specifically complex creations an intelligent designer would make versus those made by a non-intelligent entity. Even that monkey, if given enough time - eons, to be sure - would produce Shakespearean sonnets, but it doesn't mean that the monkey wanted to do just that. As we can see, intelligent design is bereft of noteworthy ideas. Almost everything it says, including its major arguments, have either all been said before or have turned out to be totally untrue.