Intelligent design is a rational explanation for the origin of species

Me: "Information - what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things" Con: "Again Pro has provided the loosest of definitions of information" http://lmgtfy.com... As previously stated, I got my definitions from Wikipedia for sake of convenience. It just so happens that the definition which you are insulting comes from the Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... You accused me of making a Genetic Fallacy. That is a Fallacy where the origin of information rather than its current context. To quote an example from Con's link: "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There are numerous motives explaining why people choose to wear wedding rings, but it would be a logical fallacy to presume those who continue the tradition are doing so with the intent of promoting sexism. Another example concerned the original meaning of a word as opposed to its modern meaning. It appears that the Genetic Fallacy, according to Con's link, doesn't apply to my argument at all. Also, Con simplified my argument. My argument was not just that rational people believe in ID, but rather, that rational people who were once well known strong proponents against ID were later persuaded by evidence given for ID. It is not the believing, but the persuasion that is used as evidence. Con then presented a list of individuals who signed a poll against ID, which does not show persuasion as I did. Even if Con used persuasion from ID to abiogenesis as evidence, that would only strengthen my argument by validating it. Con: "I never said that Pro needs to demonstrate that ID is clearly the answer, I would argue that arriving at a stance that ID is the most likely cause of life is sufficient to demonstrate that it is a rational explanation for the origin of species, as per the resolution request." This is not what was agreed to in round 1. It was clearly stated that the intent was not to show ID as the most likely. It was to show it to be rational, or reasonable. That is to say, that a rational person would believe it. One way to show it to be irrational would be to show that abiogenesis is by far more reasonable than ID. While Con maintains that it is thermodynamically possible in theory, he has not attempted to show that the theory hold true in reality, which I pointed out in previous rounds. It was explicitly stated in Round 1 that Con had the BoP to show abiogenesis is by far the most rational, which he claims is, "a waste of time for the purposes of this resolution." Con: "Pro seems to object to my disjunctive formulation of his negative-arguments for ID, which essentially is what it has boiled down to so far. Pro has provided a number of structures/information arguments and only argued for ID on the virtue of the "impossibility of the contrary" type of arguments." Con shows in his statement that he has completely missed my arguments in whole. None of the arguments I presented have alluded to the "impossibility to the contrary" and Con asserts. In fact, I explicitly stated that abiogenesis is a ration belief, because it is based on observable science. I also asserted that it is based on faith, because we have yet to demonstrate any realistic environment where the first cell could evolve. It is ironic that Con accuses me of negative arguments. Con's argument in favor of abiogenesis includes negating ID on lack of evidence. Yet, the reason he accuses me of using negative arguments is that I point out the lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Con: "Moreover Pro attacks the steps involved in abiogenesis probabilistically, however Pro moves the goalposts here, since I am in no way demonstrating the formation of bacteria via. abiogenesis, but only that of a simple self-replicating system that is capable of evolution via. natural selection." Con seems to be using his own definition of abiogenesis here. Every single reference I've made to abiogenesis defines it to include all the stages leading up to the first bacteria. The definition I got from Wikipedia includes the first bacteria and the lengthy article from talkorigins on abiogenesis also includes the first bacteria. The image I posted in my previous argument came from talkorigins. Con seems to be redefining abiogenesis to meet his own needs instead of using the concept that is accepted by every single source posted this entire debate! Con: "However the only way this can be meaningfully done is if an intelligent agent can actually be demonstrated to exist in the first place." ID is diverse, and there is no accepted source of intelligence. To require such would be to take a specific side of ID, Theistic Evolution for example. If I took the side of a theist, this would become a debate on the existence of a deity. If I took the side of those who believe it came from aliens, then it would be a debate on aliens. Either one would be a derailment from the topic at hand. Con: "Pro presents Stephen Meyer"s syllogism which is not at all logically valid, what on earth is it supposed to be?!?! Until Pro can demonstrate this syllogism to be logically valid, then the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises, and hence it can be ignored. Moreover even if Pro demonstrates the syllogism logically valid, then he also needs to demonstrate the premises logically sound, which he has also failed to do." Con has failed to define the difference between logically valid and logically sound, so I tried doing a Google search. http://lmgtfy.com... http://lmgtfy.com... Both searches return the same definition: "In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false." Con has a problem here, because he is unable to refute the claim with any more certainty than I am able to substantiate the claim. For reference, I shall repost the logical argument: P1) Intelligence, as of now, is the only known cause of complex functionality P2) It is possible to demonstrate that high volumes of functionally specific information can be produced by intelligent causes P3) The simplest conceptual cell contains high volumes of functionally specific information C) From the perspective of known cause-and-effect structure of the world, the intelligent design is the most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the functionally specific information present in a theoretical simple cell. Con's contention with P1 is that random mutations and natural selection are able to give rise to complex functionality. The formal logic to assert that claim looks like a simple version of the above logic. P1) All known causes for alterations in DNA are purely naturalistic P2) It is possible to demonstrate that high volumes of functionality specific information can be produced by naturalistic causes C1) The common ancestor of all species under the theory of evolution was produced by purely naturalistic causes. It is the same argument but with reverse terminology. Con seems to hold this as a logically valid argument for abiogenesis, but he has not demonstrated the conclusion to be logically valid/sound; yet, he demands rigorous proof for the same construction in favor of ID. If Con holds the above to be logically reasonable, than he must hold the Meyer's construction to be reasonable as well, since they are the same, which by itself would meet my BoP as defined in round 1. If Con does not hold the above to be logically reasonable, he has not shown abiogenesis to be logically reasonable either. If he were to use the definition of abiogenesis as I gave in response to his request, the one that seems to fit all scientific sources including the diagram posted from talkorigins (and anti-ID site), then all of the evidence he has shown thus far it to show P2 to be logically possible. Although the E. Coli experiment is debatable, even if P1 and P2 were given as true, C would not be a logical conclusion, thus the construction wouldn't be logically sound. I regret being side-tracked this debate and not having space to present more details in favor of ID. I admit I did not provide much evidence in favor of it. However, my BoP was to show that there exists evidence that would lead one to logically conclude that ID took place. I believe I have done this. 1) As intelligent beings, we use heuristics to determine what objects are of intelligence origin and which are not. These heuristics are used by multiple scientific disciplines which have nothing to do with the origin of life. 2) Applying these multidisciplinary heuristics to the hypothetical ancestor of the simplest known cell today, we would conclude that its origin came from intelligence. 3) Famed proponents of abiogenesis were swayed by the evidence (Dean Kenyon & Antony Flew) . This is evidence that ID has enough evidence to be considered reasonable by some skeptics of ID. 4) There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis, not ID, is the factual origin of life. This is evidence that there isn't a more logically sound explanation which should reasonably be adopted instead. As Con doesn't seem to understand the nature of this debate, I'd like to remind the voters that this is a vote on whether or not ID should be considered a rational possibility. It is NOT a vote on whether or not ID is more rational than abiogenesis. I think I have reiterated that in every single round thus far. I'd like to thank Envisage for having this debate with me. It was interesting.