Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

I am happy to do this debate, and have enjoyed myself thus far, however my opponent seems to believe I haven't appropriately argued the debate. Perhaps he thought I would give a full accounting of unguided evolution, rather than poking holes in his explanation. It appears he has overlooked the fact that he himself has already established evolution as a real thing for me. His model already includes mutations, speciation, and all of the features of modern biological evolution. He simply has tried to overlay this already complete theory with god or divine intelligence. Instead of giving reasons why his theory has more explanatory power, he has merely offered alternate explanations to ones we already have, ones that still work quite well without invoking any additional entities. Perhaps an analogy would be best here. Imagine you pick up a ball and throw it. Like you'd expect, it flies away for a little bit before rolling on the ground and eventually coming to a stop. Now you could cite the laws of physics, but a much better option is Sprites. All motion is guided by Sprites. Without them, objects would always move randomly. They like order and rules, so they keep to the ones they created for themselves. They are quite shy, which is why you never see them. This explains why when we observe quantum events, they seem random. Because they are! We're just scaring off the Sprites by looking too closely. Motion requires intelligence to move in an orderly fashion. What I've done here is taken an already well-understood phenomenon (motion) and inserted an additional and unneeded element, then explained how that elements could fit in. I then blankly assert motion requires Sprites without explaining *why* they are necessary. There's no way to either confirm or deny the existence of these Sprites. Like divine intelligence, Sprites cannot be studied, meaning any time someone pokes a hole in my Sprite theory, I can simply retcon how Sprites work to incorporate this new information I didn't know about earlier: "Oh, quantum particles move probabilistically and not truly random? Well the Sprites didn't go away entirely, they just went further away so you didn't see them. They can still affect matter from that distance, just not as well, which is why it's only partly ordered." This is, in essence, what my opponent has done. We already understand evolution. We are able to test and make predictions, accurate predictions, which is why it is one of the most successful theories to date. All he has done is explain how it might actually work a different way, without giving any significant reason why we should believe it to be that way, at least no more reason than I've given for my Sprites. Unfortunately for Pro, it is even worse for his theory than for my Sprites. My Sprites are unfalsifiable, and lots of his claims are. For example, the bold claim that evolution requires intelligence guiding the process to work. Is this true? Demonstrably, the answer is no. Exhibit A is the Youtube video "Evolved Virtual Creatures" [1]. I've made it a tinyurl to prevent embedding, I invite you to watch at your leisure. The video demonstrates unguided evolution through Natural Selection. A computer simulation generates random changes to simple structures and then selects whichever structure achieves the goal the best. From that develops a plethora of structures remarkably similar to what we find in nature (horses, crabs, etc.). Even the behavior develops into familiar strategies. My opponent may wish to argue that this required an intelligence, humans built the program after all. What is important to note is that none of the programmers intended for any of these structures to arise, they simply built the world. This would be akin to an intelligence creating the universe and then letting it run without interference. Pro's burden is not whether a god created the universe, but whether an intelligence guided evolution throughout all of its steps. This shows that intelligence is not needed for random mutations to produce beneficial changes under selective pressure, also known as Darwinian Evolution. Moving onto the actual content of kenballer's R3, we have his interpretation of Genesis. Interesting that he relies on this for an account of his theory, yet contradicts it when it is inconvenient. For example he calls Noah's flood a local flood, despite Genesis saying the flood covered the mountains by 15 cubits [2]. He claims the order in the Genesis account has been verified by science, yet his source isn't using the scientific method at all. Rather than observing and testing nature, the author reads Genesis and then tries to interpret it so that it fits with our understanding. It's "here's the conclusion, what evidence can we find to support it". It's the opposite of science. How do we know this? Because this interpretation only came about when we found out the reality of a young earth was untenable. No one thought the sun was already created, or that it didn't refer to actual heaven, until our understanding made that interpretation untenable. Lastly, the author uses a simplified translation to make his case, the New American Standard Bible. Looking at the KJV, it is clear Genesis says Yahweh is creating the things during the days, since it doesn't leave out "and it was so" like the NASB. The author is clearly biased, arguing the clouds covered the earth and didn't let light in, yet the plants that require photosynthesis already existed throughout the previous "age". I could go on about how the author's interpretation doesn't jive with reality, but I think I've made my point. Per common design, my opponent quotes Darwin, but recall we aren't debating the veracity of Origin of Species, we're just using Darwin's name to describe unguided evolution. Darwin set us on the right path, but there is a lot he got wrong. To the actual point Pro made, he offers nothing but conjecture: Sure it *looks* like we all evolved from a common ancestor but *maybe* we didn't. This is the best he comes up with. While kenballer gives many sources (questionable as they may be) they are strikingly remiss from his argument about the Prairie Chicken, where apparently intelligence is needed for evolution to work. In reality, the Prairie Chicken was only endangered because humans suddenly swooped in and took over most of their habitat [3]. Evolution doesn't work so fast that a species can adapt to a completely new environment in a few short decades. Without human intervention, most environments change slowly over time. My opponent states the fossil record shows species remaining unchanged until their extinction. This is entirely false, we have a rich record of changes to populations over time for many genera (plural of genus). As my opponent notes, pointing out design flaws would entirely undermine his position. Well, a design is something geared toward a specific end. My opponent argues one of these ends is to seek a relationship with god; while we are physically able to attempt to connect to some supernatural being our physiology is hardly adapted to that end. We have to spend the majority of our time gathering resources, taking care of family, healing from injury, etc. This is not a necessity, there is no reason why our design (especially from an omnipotent perspective) must be that which needs constant attention in order to have a shot at survival. We're looking at it from a modern 1st world perspective, for most of human history, most people spent the majority of their day making sure they didn't starve. Also, our minds are adapted for group cohesion and ego preservation [4], not truth seeking. The existence of confirmation bias alone refutes the idea that we are designed to seek a transcendent truth. I look forward to the final round. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[4] http://www.princeton.edu...