Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

There is very little in Pro's opening remarks that attempted to affirm the resolution. He spends most of his time trying to prove that a god must exist and be responsible for the creation of the universe, which in no way leads to the conclusion that this intelligence is responsible for guiding evolution. He claims: "If a great order arose from an expansion, then it should be understood that the intervention of an intelligence was involved in every moment of this expansion: Furthermore, we can probably infer that this intelligence created and sustains the universe and the earth with humanity in mind, but the other question becomes "why". " This simply does not follow. There are many things that we order, yet can leave alone after we order it. Every video game ever made, for example, runs automatically without the creator(s) of the game's knowledge. Shigeru Miyamoto does not move all of the enemies around each time we fight them in Super Mario Brothers, despite the very well ordered nature of the game he created, he merely designed the system and then let it run without his further input. There are virtually infinite possibilities that allow for an intelligent creator to exist in a hands off mode. Perhaps our universe is the product of a science experiment, and the entire span of our universe's history passes by before this intelligence can even comprehend its experiment is over, and might not discover we existed until much later, or perhaps even never. So arguing "we can infer" the creator is involved in evolution because it created the universe is nothing more than an assertion. On what basis do we say this intelligence must be concerned *with us*? There is no such reason. If my opponent wishes to affirm the resolution he will have to focus on why evolution itself is better explained by an intelligently guiding hand, not merely discuss the likelihood of such an entity existing. He needs to show it is *possible* for such a being to exist, but he can't stop there and do a victory lap. Pro's sole point on the matter is to say DNA is information, and information theory says information can only come from the mind. This is incorrect on all levels. DNA isn't information, not in the traditional sense. By what measure is it to be considered information? We may use the terminology for the sake of brevity, but it isn't the same type of information one could write on a paper, or found in a computer hard drive. When we say DNA contains "information" we are really saying the various codons react to enzymes in such a way that a protein results from the interaction [1]. It is no more information than any other chemical reaction is information, or that dominoes set up contains the information that the next domino is to fall after it does. Let's assume though that DNA is information. Where exactly has it been proven that all information must come from a mind? My opponent does list a source for his statement, but he has erred in giving us nothing more than a list of articles; the word "mind" does not even appear. Unless he means we should read each and every one of the dozen in order to find the claim, he has given us the wrong link. Should some claim that information must come from a mind, they are demonstrably mistaken. We understand the completely natural processes behind evolution, and simple uninfluenced natural chemistry is all that is required to add or change the structure of a DNA molecule [2]. No hand required, no mind. So either DNA is not information, or my opponent's claim that information must come from a mind is wrong. Without a reason to consider a mind a necessary component of evolution, Occum's Razor shaves it off. You cannot claim X is a necessary component of Y if Y can be fully explained without X, and my opponent gives no convincing point that we need X to explain Y. I previously stated that addressing my opponent's proofs of god were unnecessary, and I stand by that statement. I am not here to disprove God's existence, nor do I even believe I could, yet proving a god exists doesn't get us any closer to showing this god or any intelligence was behind evolution. Still, I will correct a few of the inaccuracies he presented. It seems requisite today to begin cosmological arguments by refuting Steady State theory. Why they insist on pointing out the universe as we know it had a starting point is puzzling. Virtually all atheists adhere to big bang cosmology; we're well aware that universe, again as we know it, began to exist. We differ in that the Big Bang was not a creation from absolute nothing. Space and time, the universe *as we know it*, had a beginning but existence? No, this argument relies on a significant misunderstanding of terminology. The scientific consensus on the matter is that, however the universe came about, there is no need for an intelligence behind it. But didn't Vilenkin show you need intelligence to get something? Ask Vilenkin himself: "Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. " [3] Or, put more damningly by Steven Hawking, "This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary" [4]. Even the idea that it came from an absolute nothing is refuted by Vilenkin: "[T]he state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe. " [3] My opponent also gives us the teleological argument. The universe is so well designed for life, slightly changing any of the variables means life can't exist, so a god must exist to set those variables, right? Pro relies on a heavy version of carbon chauvinism, the idea that "life" is only the carbon based life we know of on this planet. True, change some of the variables a bit and "we" couldn't exist, but that doesn't mean "life" couldn't exist. There could be other combinations where life would be even more prevalent than it is here, here in this barren universe where only the smallest sliver of it is in any way hospitable for life. We look at this and think it was designed for us? This is nothing more than misplaced arrogance, resting upon the laurels of ignorance and firmly held. This is directed at the idea, not my opponent in general, for he is not the originator of this idea. Pro attempts to deflect that we likely live in a multiverse, for if there are infinite or nearly infinite universe each with their own laws, the probability one would exist capable of supporting our type of life is nearly 100% without the need of a god. He claims that we don't know the probability of there being multiple universes. This in no way refutes the idea, it only argues that we can't know whether they exist. My opponent cannot make a statistical claim if he doesn't know the stats, just like you can't predict the probability of ever rolling five twelves if you don't know how many times you throw the dice. My opponent has not offered any proof the this is the only universe, and frankly the scientific consensus argues that there are such things, thus the "fine-tuned" argument amounts to absolutely nothing. Thanks to my opponent again for offering this debate, I look forward to his next response. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] Der Spiegel, 17 October 1988