Evolution, the theory that all life is the result of purely undirected processes, is probably false.

I appreciate that my opponent directed this topic my way. I am honored. Besides religion, science that counters religion is my favorite topic. ;-) I know that this will be a spirited but respectful debate. I have distilled my opponent's points to make reference easier. 1.Science is subjective. 2.Since man can write a computer program, ID can explain the origin of life. 3.Since a scientist turned creationist backpedals on his own abiogenesis theory, then evolution is bunk. 4.Probability says evolution (and abiogenesis) is impossible. 5.Cambrian Explosion at 15 million years was too short, no fossils from Precambrian, too many protein combos to account for, "Reasonable people" can't understand it, so it must be false. 6. Cell shape (protein anchors) are not solely specified by DNA, multicellular animals require specialized cell types, these types could never arise as a result of evolution. 7.Evolution is mindless- cells contain information, so ID is the only way it could have gotten there. 8.ID is simpler than evolution, which is in the realm of UFOs, and the New World Order. ID is obvious- why investigate when the answer is right there. Evolution is exotic. 9.ID should be accepted, since opposition to it is ideological, not scientific, since ID implies God, or a Higher Intelligence. If we teach evolution, we are teaching atheism. Before I begin on the counterpoints, I have issue with the primary resolution. The resolution that my opponent has written, besides using loaded wording- "the theory that all life is the result of PURELY UNDIRECTED processes", is patently false, and purposefully misleading. I must clarify for my readers what evolution is. Evolution is the process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. As I will show below, the key is natural selection- not an undirected process at all. Also, evolution as a process, is a fact - the theory of evolution describes this process - an important distinction. On top of this, my opponent has lumped abiogenesis in with evolution. Evolution deals with life after it has already been established, not how it became established. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. The idea that these two theories are not to be confused with each other is fundamental to the correct understanding of evolution. So, in order that we are on the same page, I must request that my opponent apply the correct scientific definition to the resolution - and furthermore, I will ignore the smoke screen he is attempting to put up with abiogenesis, and ask the reader to do the same. Onto my arguments. 1. First, my opponent says - "The scientific "truth" is that scientific theory which best explains the phenomenon in question, where "best" is defined as "most adequate." Unfortunately, this can often be subjective. This statement is misleading. When Snoopy says that scientific theories are subjective, he intends to lead you to believe they can not be trusted- - but he neglects to say that all science, before it is accepted, goes through the process of peer review- nothing is published until a multitude of qualified individuals with nothing to gain test the theory. Why do they do this?- to rule out subjectivity, the very thing he accuses them of. Evolution is a theory and a fact because it has stood up to time. It answers a question, and is predictable and practical. Intelligent design doesn't. 2. Not relevant to evolution. 3. How does one man's erroneous theory disprove all of evolution? It doesn't. It disproves one of many theories of abiogenesis. Thus, no need to counter further. 4. My opponent has a novel way of looking at evolution - via probability . He sets up the problem well - but falters when he applies it to evolution. Evolution just does not work in the manner suggested by my opponent. Chance does play a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's, and accurately representing natural selection). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. http://surge.ods.org... Also = his calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously, decreasing the validity of his argument that much more. It also implies that there is a set number of proteins, with set sequences for each protein, that are required for life. There is neither. http://www.talkorigins.org... 5 and part of 6 - Snoopy misrepresents the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of evolved animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was NOT the origin of complex life as we know it today. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today. We must remember phylum is a broad class of creatures. Man belongs in Chordata - which denotes animals with backbones. There are MANY animals with backbones - from fish to bird to rat. The Cambrian was when life overcame a huge genetic hurdle - and flourished into many different body types. http://www.americanscientist.org... http://video.nytimes.com... As for cell shape-Snoopy is wrong- DNA is wholly responsible for cell shape. Although, it is not the result of DNA mutation. It is the result of cell-signaling (communication between cells) and regulated gene expression in the DNA. This is why stem cells are such a hot topic. By regulating gene expression, a multitude of differing cell types can be generated from stem cells. http://en.wikipedia.org... ( resorting to wiki article, which is backed with several supporting documents.) One of the first things cells evolved were the proteins needed to adhere to other cells- if they did not have this, an amoeba would have a hard time finding food. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya (preCambrian) appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China, among other places. http://www.peripatus.gen.nz... http://www.pnas.org... There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms. As I am running out of room, I will break here and resume in R2 with my counter arguments. The sheer volume of information and evidence of evolution is utterly overwhelming - which is why I used almost all my time researching. I wish sometimes I WAS an ID proponent, lot less research involved. Eagerly awaiting R2