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

"all I CAN do is "parrot" the information. If I had a new, novel approach, I wouldn't be here on Debate.org. I'd be picking up my Nobel prize." Fair enough, but you could still avoid sneaking pure propaganda such as "Evolution is a fact" into your arguments. 7. I believe I addressed this argument already as well. Of course natural selection isn't random. But in your thought experiment, you completely ignore the mathematical improbabilities of random mutations producing the proteins required for a light sensitive cell in the first place. Until the completely random process of mutation produces something useful, which is mathematically impossible, natural selection has nothing to act upon. Until you address this question I might as well not waste my time responding to your arguments. 8. "This is nonsense. Evolution explains without a designer. Why make up a designer when there is no need for one?" Who's talking about "making up" a designer? The evidence IMPLIES a designer. "If a current scientific theory adequately explains something, it is foolish to trash it and make up something else." That's the whole point! Evolution DOESN'T adequately explain life as we know it because it does not explain information. This is a huge weakness, because, unlike Darwin, we know that information is the very BASIC STUFF OF LIFE. How can you possibly say that evolution is adequate to explain life when it can't even explain the very basic feature of all living organisms? If our audience takes nothing else away from this debate, remember that last point. "ID explains nothing – saying something intelligent did it begs the question – what something? Where did that something come from? We can observe and test evolution. You can't do either in ID. I will delve deeper into why ID is bogus later." Just exactly how are chance and time any better explanations than intelligence? At least intelligence can account for the information in cells, which is more than evolution can do. All evolutionists say is that "there is so much time that there is no need to explain it." Talk about intellectual laziness. I find it very interesting that Francis Crick, one of the two scientists who first discovered DNA, actually suggested Intelligent Design as an explanation. He believed that aliens seeded life on earth, but at least he realized that something other than blind chance was required to explain the specified complexity of the DNA molecule. 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." To illustrate how completely convoluted your "summary" is, let me quote what I ACTUALLY said. "Another objection that is frequently fielded is "But science can't touch God! It can't go touch the supernatural. Science deals with materialistic explanations only."...The real source of this objection is not scientific, but ideological. Intelligent Design has unmistakable theistic implications, and atheists don't like that. As a result, they attack Intelligent Design by saying that it's just "Re-heated Creationism" and "A covert attempt to get Creation back in the classroom. If one takes this stance toward ID, then one must take a similar stance toward Evolution. Evolution has atheistic implications, and could just as easily be a covert effort to get atheism taught in the classroom as fact. That is precisely what has happened." I was responding to an argument against ID, not trying to prove ID based on the fact that it faces ideological opposition. Why don't you actually read my argument and try to respond to it instead of misrepresenting it in order to knock it down? ---------------------- "Evolution is indeed a fact. Evolution has been observed. Please see links-" The idea that speciation proves evolution is a common misconception among evolutionists, and one that the scientific community has done nothing to curtail. What talkorigins is talking about is microevolution. Unlike macroevolution, microevolution does not require the addition of new information. Natural selection selects, from an assortment of already existing traits, those characteristics that provide them reproductive advantage in a given environment. This process results in a reduction in information, not an addition, and as such does not face the difficulties I presented earlier. I'm not arguing against speciation, I'm arguing against evoluiton. The processes involved in speciation are completely different than those required for evolution. The second article seems impressive on the surface. However, considering the number of ways that DNA can be shared between bacteria, through the fertility factor, plasmids, and viral infusion, it is FAR more likely that this "new" adaptation came about as the result of one of these latter processes. The ability to metabolize citrate already exists in the world of bacteria, and there's no way to guarantee that this "evolutionary change" was not the result of contamination. Even if we COULD be sure, this example does not prove that bacteria can evolve slowly into a non-bacteria. It is an astounding, breathtaking logical leap to say that because a bacteria can develope the ability to metabolize citrate, a land mamal can evolve into a whale. "Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists" It's also a slap in the face of logic. "What?! A fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. Evolution meets this definition. Only the theory (the explanation) is open for debate." First of all, how can evolution be a fact and a theory at the same time? The theory of evolution states, among other things, that all life evolved from single celled organisms by way of random mutation and natural selection. If that theory is still open for debate, then, by definition, it cannot also be fact. There is nothing contradictory in saying something can be true and yet not a fact. If may be true, for example, that God exists, but it will never be fact in the strict sense because there is no way to objectively verify that proposition. Since evolution supposedly took place over billions of years, and is, therefore, a historical sience, we will never be able to prove it beyond doubt. We can only make guesses, and some some perfectly excellent and reasonable guesses at that, but we will never be able to prove it absolutely. "Intelligence is not a force in its own right- it is an attribute of a conscience . There is no proof of such a conscience – so your point is moot." Intelligence exists all around us. There are approximately 8 billion of them on the earth at this very moment. Why does intelligence suddenly become magical and enigmatic when brought up in the context of intelligent design? As to whether or not ID is a science, each and every one of your assertions are completely false. ID DOES make testable predictions, and far more risky ones than evolution has ever made (by the way, can you offer a single prediction made by evolutionists in the last 100 years?). For example, ID scientists have predicted that junk DNA will be found to have crucial functions. Evolutionists predicted that, since evolution is a sloppy, random process, there would be a great deal of worthless DNA throughout biological systems. Therefore, not only do you have an example of a prediction, but of a suggested area of study that evolution would have totally ignored. How embarrassing. When it comes to being scientifically sterile, evolution has a corner on the market. It has not produced one useful innovation, has failed to provide any detailed explanation of how organisms might gradually evolve these complex systems, and has appealed to BLIND CHANCE to explain the most fundamental characteristi