Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

Many thanks to Pro for agreeing to continue. I salute your courage to answer the challenge. Pro did not cite any sources, so I cannot directly examine where their information came from. Nevertheless, I will try to respond as best I can. == Rebuttals == 1. The Big Bang: I do not dispute Big Bang happened, because it's compatible with both evolution and I.D. I agree that we observe galaxies moving away from each other, and I agree that indicates they were all contained in one spot initially. But this observation does not answer the original question of "first cause." Even if all the matter was once "in one spot," it still had to come from somewhere. Where did matter come from? What caused it to explode? Pro says that the condensed matter before the Big Bang means there wasn't nothing before the universe. How can this be? If the universe is everything, then by definition, nothing must have existed before it. It's difficult to imagine anything prior to the universe's existence that is not quite nothing but also not quite something. I invite Pro to further explain their point on this. I believe the following logic is sound: "Nothing" = the absence of all things, literally "no thing." The universe contains all things. The universe cannot have an infinite past. Therefore, the universe had a finite beginning. Therefore, nothing existed prior to the universe's beginning. Conclusion: Nothing created the universe But how can this be possible? Nothing cannot create something, and something cannot create itself. The only logical explanation is that an intelligent cause outside of space/time/matter set things in motion. The Big Bang does not remotely discredit Intelligent Design. 2. Origin of Life: Assuming that the Big Bang was caused by chance from nothing, Pro moves on to the estimated number of habitable planets in the universe. They correctly call it a "very rough estimate.". The truth is that scientists simply do not know. Numbers like 8.8 billion are just mathematical simulations. They are not observed or verified results. In fact, as of last year only 3,548 possible "earth-like" planets have been found, "earth-like" being defined simply as having a similar radius, temperature, and mass to Earth. [1] That's a very liberal definition of earth-like, because some scientists estimate there are hundreds of variables needed to make a planet suitable for life. Pro then discusses the probability of life developing by chance (again, assuming that there actually are 8,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth-like planets). However, I return to the original probability for the universe to exist in the first place: 1 in 10^10(123). To truly grasp the impossibility of this number, that is 1 followed by more zeros than there are particles in the universe. In other words, if you tried to express this number by writing a zero on each particle in the universe, you would run out of atoms before running out of zeros. [2] I maintain that such an impossible probability cannot be the best explanation of life. As my opponent so perfectly said themselves - "Today we don't know how life first started." 3. Slimy Soup Theory: Is it any less logical to accept the possibility of a divine power than to believe that lightning struck a "slimy soup" and accidentally created life? No. In fact, I submit that it's more logical - because if all that life requires is a chemical soup and electricity then that would be a rather easy experiment to verify. And yet, all attempts have failed. The lottery example is only valid if there actually is a winning ticket.... and as of yet, science cannot demonstrate that a winning ticket exists. And again, if Penrose's calculations are even roughly accurate, then there aren't enough available tickets in the universe to beat the odds anyway. 4. Flopping Fish: I tried to find the species Pro is referring to, but since they did not site their source I cannot. In this specific example, I have several questions: How can a fossil show that a long-extinct species that has never been observed can jump clear from one pond to the next? Even if they could, it's difficult to imagine two distinct ponds with independent resource systems that are close enough together for a fish to jump between them. And even then, how could a fish who is unaware of the other pond's existence know to jump into it? And if it's a pond, how are those flopping fish genes propagated universally, since a pond, by definition, is an isolated body of water? I don't dispute the fact that similar species undergo small changes - we obviously know that things like skull size, hair length, and bone density can change. But that only shows how organisms who are already alive and who already exist in a complex form change. It does not account for how life can emerge from non-life or how simple organisms can become unfathomably complex. Finally, Pro says "a concept as beautiful and complicated as life itself should have a complicated answer."...... No, it shouldn't. At least, it does not follow that a complicated effect must have a complicated cause. For example, I think it's reasonable to say that a computer is a fairly complex machine. If you walk into your room and find your computer on, it's possible that the air pressure outside suddenly dropped, causing a large gust of wind that picked up dust, which blew through your window causing a static electric shock in your room that suddenly caused you're computer's power to boot on. Or, it's possible that your wife walked in and pushed the power button. Both are technically possible, but the latter is far more likely. This is the concept of Occam's Razor - complex ideas do not necessarily need complex explanations. I did quote the Bible, but that sentence is not unique to Christianity - all Intelligent Design theories essentially claim that a god created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. I chose that quote simply because it's familiar to most people. I did not mean for it to indicate a support for young earth creationism (because I do not support it). I can see how that may have been confusing, my apologies. I wish to keep my distance from the Bible because of the unnecessary stereotypes it brings in. Many people dismiss I.D. as ridiculous because they picture it as belief in a cosmic old man in a toga with a flowing white beard - and I agree such a belief is ridiculous. If god exists he almost certainly is not an old man with a beard. Rather, the concept of "god" is better understood as an all-powerful and all-intelligent force beyond the limits of space/time/matter. When considered in this way, god does not seem so far fetched. == Conclusion == We are searching for the best explanation of life. Pro's explanation contains several phases of evolution: 1. Nothing evolves into everything (Universe explodes into existence) 2. Everything evolves into a few finely-tuned life supporting environments 3. Non-life evolves into life 4. Simple life evolves into complex life 5. Complex life evolves into more complex life Pro can make a very strong case for #5, and can at least provide an explanation for #4. But that is where the theory stops. Pro has no answer for points 1, 2, or 3. So we see that as the evolution theory is applied farther and farther into the past, as indeed it must be, it becomes weaker and weaker. It must embrace both astronomical improbabilities and unnecessary extravagances (such as the existence of a multiverse or extraterrestrial panspermia) to explain the origins of life. Conversely, the theory of Intelligent Design offers a satisfyingly complete explanation that's just as (if not more) probable and vastly less extravagant than evolution. Since I.D. offers a simple and complete explanation and evolution offers a complex incomplete one, I.D. is the better explanation of the two. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.evolutionnews.org...