The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.

"I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so...The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that"s the best argument you have, then the game is over." This quote was made by ex-evolutionist Dr. Antony Flew in 2007. (http://www.tothesource.org...) Because I agree with him, I stand as the Pro, that The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.I will now go down the list as I refute the arguments bought up by my opponent.POINT 1: EINSTEINI will admit that Mr. Einstein was not a creationist. However, that was not the point I was making. I was not trying to address the validity of my side by saying that Einstein agreed with me, I was simply using the text of the quote as a prelude to my arguments.POINT 2: PHYSICAL EVIDENCEMy opponent said in his previous speech that a deity or human is not necessary in some cases to create. He said that natural processes are a creator in and of themselves.To this I respond: Natural Processes are evidence of a creator.This may seem like a strange point, but think of it this way. Randomness. That is what the evolution mentality is. The big bang, the formation of planets, and even the process of evolution itself is a random process. Now think about this: For years, for thousands of years, the laws of science: physics, biology, chemistry, and the like have conformed to a set of rules. Isaac Newton found out one such law as he was sitting under the apple tree. Now think of this: if the entire universe came about through random chance, why are such rules unchanging? Random creation should bring forth random laws. But there are no random laws.My opponent talks of natural processes, but those natural processes are a result of an intelligent designer deity creating it.POINT 3: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCEMy opponent made the point that aliens are a statistical probability. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was not talking about the probability of extraterrestrials, I was talking about how humans WANT extraterrestrials. Humans are looking for intelligent life in the stars when they should be looking for an intelligent creator.POINT 4: DEITY AND SCIENCEMy opponent makes the case that the famous scientists such as Galileo and Newton were only "Christians" because they would be executed if they weren't. I disagree with this completely. Both Galileo and Newton wrote numerous things on God and science. If they were being forced to "believe" they wouldn't have written as much as they did on the subject."God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." - Galileo Galilei (http://bevets.com...)"For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation" - Isaac Newton, 1706 Opticks (2nd Edition)POINT 5: SCIENCE AND RELIGIONBefore I get into this topic, Allow me to give the viewers a quick science lesson.There are two kinds of science: Observational Science and Historical Science. Observational Science deals with the things we see and can recreate, such as a chemical reaction and the dissection of a frog. Historical Science, however, deals with the past. Historical Science is entirely faith-based, no matter if you are a creationist or an evolutionist. For example, suppose I told you that the Eiffel Tower was in France, it was 986 feet tall, it was built by Gustave Eiffel for the 1889 World's fair. We could use observational science to see it in France, and to measure it's height. But we must have faith that it was built by Gustave for the World's Fair. There are two types of science, and that is very important.My opponent made the point that science and religion cannot live in harmony. He said that science is concerned with what is true and observable and is subject to change based on evidence whereas religion is rigid and will not change.This is incorrect.Both "Science" and "Religion" agree on one thing: Observational Science. Both the chemist and the pastor will agree that the earth revolves around the sun, atoms make up the universe, and clouds are formed by evaporation. This is observational facts. Where "Science" and "Religion" collide is at Historical Science. Whereas evolutionists believe the earth was formed millions of years ago with the big bang, creationists believe it was formed six thousand years ago with a six-day creation.How do we know? We can't. No one was there when it was created. We have to have faith.That's what it all comes down to: Faith. Creationists have faith in their theory. Evolutionists have faith in theirs.So when my opponents says that science and religion cannot exist together, he is incorrect. As I said before, many intelligent men and women have devote their lives to science, and still believed in a designer deity. Saying that they are incompatible is untrue.In conclusion, the physical and psychological evidence points to a designer deity. A designer deity is compatible with science, and that is where I stand. I stand as the Pro, that The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.