Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

Thanks to Pro for opening the debate. Before I begin, I'd like to clarify that there is no burden of proof for either side here. According to Round 1 parameters, we are seeking the "best explanation" of life. This debate is therefore focused on an inference to the best explanation, not deductive proof. Also, I will not be arguing within a specifically Christian/Biblical framework. I will simply be advocating a generalized Theistic Intelligent Design (I.D.) My claim is that life in the observed universe is best (best = most probable, most complete, most satisfying, and least extravagant) explained by Intelligent Design. Alright, let's get started. First, I agree with everything my opponent wrote in their opening argument, so I have no rebuttals to offer. I do not dispute the evidence of fossils showing slight changes in organisms over time. I do not dispute the fact that Natural Selection favors the survival of the fittest traits. However..... Pro's argument falls far short of the topic at hand. When faced with the question "How is life in the universe best explained?" Pro answers that fossils indicate humans changed body sizes and diets, frogs got longer legs, and lions got sharper teeth. Basically, Pro says "life exists because living things change over time." Pro is essentially giving a circular response by assuming life already exists in their answer. To truly address this topic, we must dive deeper. Before living things can begin changing/evolving, life must first rise from non-life. And in order for that to happen, life-permitting conditions must exist in the universe. It's not enough for Pro to point to fossils and say "see? They change!" Pro must ultimately explain how the evolutionary model accounts for life evolving from non-living compounds and how the universe contains life permitting conditions. == Argument == Before starting my argument, we must first establish that the universe had a finite beginning. Both logic and scientific evidence has shown that the universe cannot be infinite. Logically, if an infinite sequence of past events needed to occur in order to arrive at this present moment, then we could never actually arrive at this present moment because it's impossible to complete an infinite sequence of events. Scientifically, the theorem developed by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1]. Given that the universe had a beginning, there are only 3 possible explanations for the origins of the universe as we observe it: physical necessity, chance, or design (If Pro can think of a 4th, they are welcome to include it). Physical necessity - There is no logical or empirical evidence to suggest the universe exists out of necessity. I fully realize that a simple lack of evidence is not a good reason to totally reject a proposal (Argument from Ignorance), but we are looking for the BEST explanation here, and I submit that an explanation for which there is no evidence is not the best. Chance - This is a viable option, but it's so astoundingly improbable that it cannot offer the best explanation. Roger Penrose of Oxford University calculated that the probability of the universe's low entropy condition developing by chance alone is 1:10^10(123). [2] This is an unbelievably inconceivable number - a probability so small that it certainly flirts with the definition of impossible. I look forward to Pro explaining why we should accept such improbability as the "best" solution to how life formed. Design - Flipping Penrose's ratio around, there is therefore a 10^10(123) to 1 probability that the universe did NOT arise by chance, i.e., design is vastly more probable. But beyond probability, there are logical reasons to accept design as the best explanation for life: First, something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot cause something. Since we have already established that the universe (i.e., everything that exists) had a finite beginning, it means by definition that nothing must have existed before the universe. Therefore, if we accept the chance explanation, we must accept that nothing somehow caused everything by chance. However, since nothing cannot cause something, the most logical explanation is there must have been an intelligent cause. Next, all the scientific evidence we have available today indicates that life cannot come from non-life (abiogenesis). Many experiments have attempted to do it, and some have succeeded in forming basic proteins, but none have produced life. We do, however, know for a fact that life can produce other life, and that conscious beings can produce other conscious beings. As such, I submit that design is the better explanation for life's origins. To conclude, Pro's argument about evolutionary change is spot on.... but it only explains how life changes after it is already alive and exists in a complex form. Pro must explain the whole story - how life begins to evolve without design in the first place - which must include how life rose from non-life and how the universe was created from nothing. Looking forward to the next round. [1] http://arxiv.org... [2] http://www.evolutionnews.org...