The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'" - Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (http://izquotes.com...)I thank my opponent for this debate. I have learned much more about my opponent's stance on the topic than I have expected. I have enjoyed it very much.In this last speech of this debate, I would like to consolidate all arguments into three main points. By this I mean that I have not rebutted all my opponent's arguments one-for-one. I have inferred their meaning and rebutted the underlying ideas. I have phrased the points in the form of questions. It is these questions that readers should answer before casting their ballot.QUESTION ONE: IS THE UNIVERSE RANDOM?This is a point that has been running through this debate. I would like examine this point a bit more.My opponent and I seem at odds as to the answer to this question. My opponent believes that things in the universe change. He said in his last speech: "Rules aren't unchanging, even laws aren't unchanging. That was the overarching point in my science vs religion segment." However, his next statement rebutts this point for me: " If a piece of credible evidence came into the mainstream challenging any popular scientific theory, they would be forced to analyze it with profound investigation." What this means is that this evidence has ALREADY BEEN THERE, and we are just now seeing it. The rule hasn't changed, our observation of it has.As an example, the law of gravity has always been a fact, but it was only when Newton was under the apple tree that we fully realized it. The Law didn't change, we just changed our observation of it.So we see that the universe is, indeed, NOT random. It follows a specific set of natural, chemical, and above all, logical rules. And such well-ordered rules could not have come about from a not-well-ordered creation, such as the Big Bang. Only a logical deity would create such a universe. So, this question goes to PRO, that there is evidence of a designer deity.QUESTION TWO: CAN SCIENCE AND RELIGION COEXIST?My opponent defined religion in round three as: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." However, looking at the webpage he provided, this definition is the second on the list. The first is as follows: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Religion is, quite simply, the beliefs concerning the creation of the universe. As a creationist, I believe that the universe was created by a designer deity. My opponent believes otherwise. However, we do not disagree on one thing: Science.Like I said in my previous speech, there are two kinds of science. Observational science both my opponent and I agree on. We both agree that the universe is made up of atoms, that water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen, and that the Eiffel Tower is 986 feet tall. There is no disagreement here. The only disagreement is the things we cannot observe, such as the creation of the universe.Therefore, the answer is yes, Science and Religion CAN coexist. It has. I believe in the science that deals with the world around us. And so do many others. This is not the issue.QUESTION THREE: CAN SCIENCE AND SCIENCE COEXIST?This seems like a very strange point. Allow me to clarify.There are two different connotations of science. One is an observational process, another is a belief.Like I said before, true science has to do with the things we can see (or measure). Water, atoms, and the Eiffel Tower. This is the part that religion agrees with. But does the 'other science' agree with it.The 'other science' is a belief, much like religion. They believe things they cannot see, such as the creation of the universe and the evolutionary process. (please note that I am not saying this is bad. As a creationist, I have a lot of belief as well. I am just making note that both sides fundamentally require faith or belief.)So, can this 'other science' coexist with 'true science'?Allow me to give you an example to help clarify this point: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.Please read the following articles: http://science.nasa.gov... http://physics.about.com... http://physics.about.com...(trust me, only the first one is long. the other two are definitions.)Anyway, the idea of dark matter was invented to solve a problem with the Big Bang model. There is no evidence for it, but according to scientists, it must be there because the Big Bang model would fall apart without it.Afterword, the theory(actually, its a hypothesis) of dark energy was created for the same reason. No evidence, it just has to be for the model to work.We see here that 'other science' doesn't look for facts, they look for "evidence" which promotes their theory.This is not the way to go for true science.I won't answer this question. I'll leave the answer up to the readers.In conclusion, the question here is: is there evidence of a designer deity? The answer is yes. All around us, we see logic and order, which can only come about through an intelligent creator.In addition, true science is something both sides agree on, but at the same time, both sides rely of belief and faith.So, with all this evidence, I stand as the Pro, that The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.