Progressive Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution

Science provides explanationsIn the previous round Pro cited the growth of monotheistic religion as evidence that science is not displacing religious explanations. In fact, religion is only growing in the undeveloped world, where science has not significantly influenced culture. In the developed world other than the U.S., atheism comprises about 40% to 60% of the population. In the U.S., atheism and "no religion" has about doubled since 1990 to the present 33%. [14.http://www.atheistscholar.org...] Pro is correct that monotheistic religion is at an all time high in terms of numbers, but that's only because the undeveloped part of the world has grown so fast.Our debate is not about whether God exists. If God exists, He could have chosen to work either within the bounds of comprehensible science. Pro must prove that no scientific explanation is possible so that divine magic is required.Innate religion?If humans have an innate religious sense, that does not imply the God created the universe outside of the bounds of comprehensible science. In fact, a innate religious sense does not make religion true. It only means that having some such belief has an evolutionary survival advantage.I think that humans have an innate tribal instinct and an innate need to form theories and seek explanations. Both traits are clear survival advantages for a species that survives by superior intelligence. Religion serves the tribal instinct by promoting bonding with other believers, and it serves the need to have theories of why things happen. It started with "Why did the volcano erupt?" or "why does it rain or not rain?" and proceeds to "How was the universe created?" Gods performing miracles provide answers, but not explanations. Different religions provide wildly diverse answers to the questions posed, so religion is not driven by a common God. Modern political ideologies serve the same underlying needs in a non-religious way, and also with a great variety of beliefs. So, no, there are innate needs innate in human, but religion is only one way they are satisfied.Again, facts are not determined by the level of popular belief. About a quarter of Americans believe in astrology, in reincarnation, and in witches. [15. http://www.foxnews.com...] In each area many more remain unconvinced on the issues, so the complete non-believers are likely a minority. It doesn't determine the truth of the matters.Pro's progressive creationismPro says, "scientist should view the evolutionary process as how the designer intervened periodically over the course of 6 consecutive days, with each day representing a thousand year period, ... When species go extinct, he replaces them with new species within each of the 5 major animal species (fish, birds, rodents, carnivores, herbivores)." Pro's only scientific reference is a paper on a small population of prairie chickens. The authors of the prairie chicken article where clear that it only applies to prairie chickens, where a population of a thousand chicken declined due to lack of genetic diversity. Human introduced diversity from a larger population and restored growth of the population. Lack of genetic diversity does not equate to deterioration due to mutations; it could be due to inbreeding of genetic disease already in the population. Inbreeding is not a significant hazard for human populations [16. http://discovermagazine.com...] despite common belief in the danger. Beyond that, we know that species differ dramatically in susceptibility to mutation, with previously cited horseshoe crabs being nearing unchanged for 450 million years. If humans were subject to deterioration due to mutations the human population would not have grown for 100,000 years or more. The generalization from prairie chickens is unwarranted.The time line of evolution covers 3.6 billion years, with complex life forms evolving in the last one billion years. [17. http://en.wikipedia.org...] There is no scientific support for 6000 years.Extinction and new speciesPro argues that as some species go extinct, new species are created by God in the five categories he named. Since fish, birds, and rodents are each comprised of carnivores and herbivores (his last two categories), I assume he means types of mammals other than rodents. If Pro's claim is true then species not in Pro's five categories would have only the oldest varieties, since those having gone extinct would have replaced by ones in the preferred categories. There are currently about 900,000 identified species of insects [18. http://en.wikipedia.org...], yet only 900 species are unchanged from about 400 million years ago. [19. http://www.si.edu...] Contrary to Pro's claim, insects have evolved. "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation with selective pressures exerted by environment, with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. It appears that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches." [20. http://en.wikipedia.org...] All the categories Pro proposes as replacement species are in the animal phylum of chordates. Yet of the 1.1 million known species, only 75,000 are chordate. [21. http://en.wikipedia.org...].Pro's theory is that the universe is designed for humans, yet insects have a greater biomass than all of the chordates combined. The single most successful species in terms of biomass is shrimp-like Arctic krill. [22. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Squid also exceed the biomass of humans. [23. http://factsanddetails.com...]. Neither krill nor squid are fish. Creationist predictionPro gives an example of creationist prediction, and points to a creationist web site as the source. The prediction cited is a minor point involving male chromosome mutation rates. A theory of divine intervention can be in agreement with absolutely anything observed, because whatever it is can be "explained" as divine will. This class of argument is called "the God of the gaps." [24. http://rationalwiki.org...] When volcanic eruptions could not be explained by natural causes, gods were called upon to fill the gap in knowledge. Weather, earthquakes, and plagues were similarly attributed to divine action. As science has closed gaps, creationists are down to claiming variations in mutation rates as a product of divine will. This asks us to suppose that a God with omnipotence and omniscience could not get the plan worked out using natural law alone, and must continually intervene to make corrections. The creationist theory is consistent with neither science nor an able God.Pro predicts that all humanity can be traced to four lines of women. Science has already determined that the origins are from one woman ancestor, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. [25. http://en.wikipedia.org...]The God exemption from causePro did not provide his definition of God or his case for God being necessary. He referenced his argument in a different debate. Under that debate plan, I can provide my refutation in a linked debate as well --one I did recently. I won't do that because arguments must be presented directly in the current debate within the character limits prescribed. Suffice to say that Pro demands an act of faith in accepting the existence of God according to his concept in order to grant the exemption that allows the existence of his God. Once one grants God as an exemption to first cause, then it is simpler to accept the universe itself as occurring without cause. God is infinitely more complex that a few simple natural laws, so explaining the complexity poses a far more substantial obstacle.