Evolution vs Creationism

In accordance with the rules, I will present my main arguments and save rebuttals for the next round. As stated, this debate is about the cause of the origins of life. I accept Pro's definition of evolution as a gene pool change caused by mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. As such, let's proceed. Pro is not fully correct in saying evolution states all life came from a single-cell organism. It's circular to say that all life came from a single-cell, because that single cell is also alive. So all you have said is "all life comes from life." But we are asking where life itself came from, so we must go deeper than that. Before life arose there was only non-life, so evolution must ultimately account for how life came from non-life. I do not dispute that evolution occurs the way Pro describes it - genetic mutations happen, organisms change, birds grow shorter beaks, dogs grow longer hair, etc... We know this. We observe this. But this merely proves that evolution is an agent of change, not an agent of creation. Contrary to common opinion, we cannot scientifically prove that evolution created life. We cannot re-observe the formation of the earth. We cannot replicate the early universe in a lab and see if life forms. Every attempt to do so has failed. At the same time, it is equally impossible to prove that a divine creative force exists. Neither possibility is scientific, neither possibility is provable. We are therefore left with an inference to the best explanation. I propose that creation is the best explanation for life's origins. == Argument == 1. Something cannot come from nothing - Evolution ultimately relies on something coming from nothing. The theory goes like this: Over millions of years, bacteria eventually evolved into Beethoven. The bacteria came from millions of years of "primordial soup" - elements and atmosphere swirling around through meteorological and geological processes that came to form proteins that somehow eventually came alive. Before that was stellar evolution - planets and galaxies forming together over billions of years after the Big Bang. And before the Big Bang was.... nothing. For, by definition, nothing natural could exist before the Big Bang if the Big Bang created everything in nature. So, ultimately, evolution must account for how something came from nothing, which is a logical absurdity. Creation, on the other hand, posits that before the Big Bang there was a supernatural (above nature) force, which (even if you don't believe in it) is at least completely plausible and can explain what caused the Big Bang. So in this category, creation has more explanatory power than evolution. 2. Irreducible Complexity - evolution must account for irreducible complexity, which it cannot. Evolution posits that life changes over gradual changes due to small and random DNA mutations. However, animals have body parts that could not possibly have evolved slowly over time. They are "irreducibly complex" - meaning they could only pop into existence all at once totally formed, because small gradual changes would have killed the animal and stopped Natural Selection. For example, the Bombardier Beetle has a complex defense system that mixes two chemicals inside its body in two separate chambers that react to form a liquid that heats to 212 degrees, which it then sprays in the face of its attacker. This system cannot evolve gradually, it must exist all at once or else it is harmful. Without the chemicals, the beetle is defenseless and gets eaten. Without the chambers, the chemical reaction melts the beetle. Either way, the gradual process does not produce a beneficial mutation and the beetle is not Naturally Selected. But somehow, these beetles do have such a system. If the gradual, accidental process of evolution cannot account for such a defense system, the only other alternative is being created all at once. This is better explained through creation. 3. Probability - For evolution to be true, the incredibly precise and complex universe we observe was created by accident. What is the probability of this happening? Incredibly small - in fact, impossibly small. 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). That's a 1 followed by more zeroes than there are atoms in the universe. This is an unbelievably inconceivable number - a probability so small that it 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. Sorry to cut it short, I didn't have much time to write this weekend, so I'll leave it there for now.