This house believes that evolution is more defensible than Young Earth Creationism

First, I shall redefine some terms with some clearer sources:Evolution is best defined as the following: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."[1] However, this is incredibly wordy. It can be shortened to "evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"[2], or "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."[3] My personal explanation is a formula: "Genetic Mutation + Natural Selection = Speciation" being the summary of evolution.Secondly, I'm going to deny the distinction between "operational" and "historical" science as relevant. This was something proposed arbitrarily by AIG[4] and then thoroughly dismissed as ridiculous by all on the evolution field, theists[5] and secular alike. To quote Carol Cleland, "the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."[6] In Sober's words regarding sex: "[o]nly by combining laws and history can one say why sex did evolve". While one may claim their is a distinction, to say one is worse than another, or one is unfalsifiable, or similar is all false. "Nomothetic and historical disciplines in evolutionary biology have much to learn from each other."[7], arguably, but "they complement each other"[7]. One is not more important than the other.With that, I'll start my case.The Case for EvolutionEvolution, as I've stated, relies on three major premises:1) Natural Selection occurs2) Genetic Mutation occurs3) These two things lead to speciation.This is how we establish macroevolution. Microevolution takes the form where (3) is "These two things lead to genetic change".So I shall defend each premise in turn. However, I'll admit: I am not a great scientist. Science is unfortunately not my strong suit. To butcher a Star Trek meme: Dammit, I'm a philosopher not a biologist! However, a little lateral thinking allows us to justify these premises. So let's see how this goes.Genetic Mutation: Proof by Common sense.I could simply point out genetic mutation occurring from chemical weapons and irradiation like chlorine gas or gamma rays[11], or traditional hereditary mutations[12], or the examples of genetic mutation in flies[13] or sickle cell[14], or the positive examples like the Lederberg experiment[15] or Lenski experiment[16], or the endless list of genetic mutations that we observe in real life. However, I'll just point to common sense as well. What happens when we copy something perfectly, say, a letter? There is no differences. However, in reality, there are going to be mistakes: an additional letter here, missing letters there, a typo here, etcetera. These are the genetic mutations we see. Genetic mutation is quite straight forward, really: things change.Natural Selection: More common senseAgain, I can point to Moths[17], Nylon eating bacteria[18], Fish[19], Cabbage[20], dogs, insects, viruses and many creatures for natural or artificial selection. It is again intuitive, however. The conker example is my favourite to use, however. Conkers which destroy each other until the strongest survive means that those which are weak, die, and those which are strong, live. Of course, this all depends on the situation, context, environment and other factors, but there is still the constant: survival of the fittest. We also see this in non-biological examples: business points out that poor products do not sell well while good products "reproduce" and become household products. In the English language, popular words are used a lot while unpopular words or metaphors die out and are replaced. Natural Selection is undeniable: it is the idea that, in general, things that are better suited to survive, survive.Speciation: Proof from Apple.No, this is not proof from the apple which you eat, but from the Apple corporation. Or, more specifically, the iPod. It's an ingenious little nifty device which I am sure we are all familiar with. Why is this relevant? Well, to requote Futuyma, "evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve"[1]. Natural Selection is something we'd see in businesses, as well as biology. In business, we generally accept the product life cycle[8] as a device to observe how a product or service, without mutation (or innovation) survives in the business environment. The iPod is no different[9]. However, with repeated extensions, the product is more likely to survive[10], and we see with the iPod that each successful adaptation to the new marketplace makes the product more and more diverse, different, and survives for longer and longer. In other words, using biological terms, the genetic mutation of the iPod, combined with the natural selection of its better models selling well, created a diversification and speciation of the product - or, popular innovation led the product to sell well.An attack on CreationismNow I've set out my case for evolution, I will begin to put the bones on my attack on creationism.The Million Dollar QuestionImagine you are a creationist, or ID proponent. A huge organisation has decided to fund you a million dollars into an experiment to prove your scientific hypothesis. Not to attack evolution, but to prove creationism. What would you spend the money on? This question I think is incredibly valuable, as there is no experiment that comes to mind to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which makes it both unfalsifiable and unverifiable.Is creaton objective?Helen Longino dealt with the question "what makes science objective"? She states two characteristics[21]: (1) cultural diversity among the scientific community and (2) that scientific theory ultimately must bend to truth. The Young Earth hypothesis, unlike evolution, fulfils neither characteristic. It is not objective. 1 - Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology2 - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology3 - http://www.talkorigins.org...;4 - http://www.answersingenesis.org...5 - http://godandscience.org...6 - http://spot.colorado.edu...7 - Elliot Sober, Philosophy of Biology8 - http://www.tutor2u.net...;9 - http://www.tutor2u.net...;10 - http://www.b2binternational.com...;11 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...12 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...13 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...14 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;15 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...16 - http://myxo.css.msu.edu...;17 - http://www.mothscount.org...18 - http://www.nmsr.org...;19 - http://www.sciencedaily.com...;20 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;21 - Helen Longino, Science as Social Knowledge