Evolution vs Creationism

== Rebuttals == "Addressing Intelligent Design" - Pro says that the presence of useless or harmful organs in our bodies contradicts the idea of an intelligent designer. But Pro goes on to demonstrate that these "vestigial body parts" were once extremely useful. Vomeronasal organs detected chemicals. The appendix was used to digest cellulose. Wisdom teeth were used to chew plants. So, Pro has in fact admitted that these body parts WERE useful and helpful to our ancestors, which means they are not just random useless mistakes and therefore do not contradict the idea of a designer. "Fossils and DNA" - Pro says that fossils show species changing over time. No doubt this is true. But again, notice how this is not really the issue. We obviously know that animals change and that buffalo have more fur than cows. But that just explains how life changes, not how life was created. Life changing into other life is much different than life springing out of non-living chemicals. When discussing DNA, Pro uses a key word - "code." DNA is indeed a code for life. The fact that DNA is code is an insurmountable hurdle for evolution. Natural, random processes can NEVER produce a code. Code production always requires intelligence. First, let's look at what a code is: An almost universally accepted definition of a code is found in Claude Shannon's paper: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. [1] In it, we find that a code has 5 components: 1) An information source that produces a message. 2) A transmitter that produces a signal to move the info. 3) A channel, or medium, along which the signal can pass. 4) A receiver that reconstructs the transmitter's original signal. 5) A destination - whom or what the message is intended for. DNA performs each of these 5 functions exactly. Therefore, DNA is a code. The problem for evolution comes in criteria #1 - information. DNA certainly has information that it transmits, but evolution cannot account for where that information came from. Information cannot be created naturally. Information always requires intelligence. All the evidence that science can give us says that information is only created by intelligence. As MIT professor Norbert Wiener famously wrote, "information is information, neither matter nor energy." [2] Therefore, it is appropriate to infer that since DNA contains information, it too required intelligence. This carries into Pro's point about prebiotic molecules. No doubt many molecules can form under natural conditions, even organic ones. But this does not get you to code, this does not get you to DNA. Pro casually says with a hand wave: "I can conclude that these prebiotic molecules found on the meteorites were deposited on Earth, and formed the very first living cells." But that is a HUGE jump! There is exactly zero scientific evidence to explain how you get from molecules on meteorites to living cells. In order to do that, you need DNA and/or RNA to form first, and for that to work you need to get those chemicals to communicate code for building proteins with each other. Scientists have no idea how this could have happened - as an aptly named article in Scientific American admits - "Pssst! Don't Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don't Have a Clue How Life Began" [3]. Simply having the raw materials (molecules) present is not enough to get you code. That would be like dumping an ink jar onto some paper and expecting Romeo and Juliet to form. Mashing raw materials together (ink on paper) does not get you code. Consciously arranging those raw materials into a pattern that follows a pre-determined rule and is understood by the receiver gets you code. Romeo and Juliet is code - an agent (Shakespeare) arranged raw materials (ink) into a pattern (letters) that follows a rule (the English language) that is understood by receivers (audience). This cannot happen naturally - it all starts with an intelligent being - Shakespeare. Thus, the idea of intelligent design is far more in agreement with what we observe about life than naturalistic evolution is. Pro merely has to produce one, single example of a naturally occurring code. If they can do this, I will forfeit the debate immediately. If not, we must admit that intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution. "Irreducible complexity" - Pro did not understand the point here. I'm not saying that evolution cannot make complex things, I'm saying that the process of gradual and random change over time (evolution) cannot explain the existence of organic systems that must either form all at once or not at all. The multi-chemical, multi-chambered Bombardier Beetle defense system could not have gradually evolved a little at a time. Any transitory-forms of the defense system either wouldn't work (and therefore would not be naturally selected) or would kill the beetle. Therefore, the fact that this complex defense system DOES exist means evolution must have accidentally mutated it all at once in its complete form, which violates the very definition of evolution and seems incredibly hard to believe. "Probability" - I don't really understand Pro's objection here. Pro confirms they believe the universe was created by the Big Bang, but did not offer an explanation for how evolution explains something coming from nothing. Pro produced an obscure Steven Hawking quote which says gravity caused the universe to come from nothing - but that is a self contradiction. If the universe came from the law of gravity, then it didn't come from "nothing," it came from gravity. This doesn't answer the question, it merely pushes it back - for now we must explain where gravity came from. I challenge Pro to do so. Pro has dropped several arguments: Pro did not explain why we should accept a theory with 1:1^10(123) probability of being correct (universe formed by chance) over a theory with a 1^10(123):1 probability (universe did not form by chance). Pro has not offered an explanation for how life can come from non-life (simply describing prebiotic molecules does not explain how the non-life to life jump is made). Pro has not shown how evolution explains the existence of irreducibly complex systems. Furthermore, Pro continually attacks the Bible and Young Earth Creationism (age of the Earth = <6,000 years). I have made no mention of the Bible or YEC. I am not advocating anything specific to Christianity or any other religion. I'm merely claiming that an Intelligent Designer, in whatever form that may be, offers a better explanation for how life formed than evolution can. Any further attacks on Genesis or YEC are merely straw men, and I won't respond to them. [1] http://math.harvard.edu... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...