Intelligent design should not be respected as much as the theory of evolution

[Case] Contention I: Design (Cell) "The genetic code" writes Richard Dawkins, "is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes." As Dawkins shows, each DNA molecule is an algorithm in biochemical code with a built in capacity for transcription and replication. Dawkins explains further: "A cell constitutes a unitary whole, a unit of life, in another deeper sense: like legs and leaves of higher organisms, its molecular constituents have functions...molecules are parts of an integrated system, and in that capacity can be said to serve the activities of the cell as a whole." The cell in another words shows the marked signature of design. It is crucially important to recognize this basic template of life, with all its intricate machinery of RNA and DNA, came fully formed with the first appearance of life. Evolution presupposes cells that have these built in capabilities. And scientists have found that the first traces of life go back between 3.5 and 4 billion years. Is it even reasonable to speculate that random combinations of chemicals could have produced a complex combination of atoms. E.g. Thats like saying that chance combinations of atoms could have assembles together and formed a fully functioning computer, with full software. Essentially, the cell is like a pre-designed computer, with all included attributes and software, not just the hardware. Contention II: Design (Rationality) Evolution cannot explain human rationality or morality. This was first pointed out by Alfred Russel Wallace, who proposed simultaneously with Darwin a theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution can account for how brain size got larger and conferred survival benefits of creatures with larger brains. By rationality is more than this. Rationality is the power to perceive something as true. We can include in rationality the unique human capacity for language, which is the ability to formulate and articulate ideas that comprehend the world around us. As Steven Pinker puts it "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth." So where did the we humans get this other capacity to figure out not only what helps our genes make it into the next generation, but also to understand what is going on in the world? Philosopher Michael Ruse, a noted Darwinist, confesses that "no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have an answer for this." [Rebuttal] "Intelligent design contends, on the other hand, that the process of change between generations is hardly so simple as this. It holds that there is a supernatural force guiding the process, designing every important adaptation instead of selecting for it." --> Intelligent Design does not state "guiding", intelligent design states that a supernatural being put the universe in motion, and designed that universe and its components, and let nature take over from there. Essentially, ID is the start, natural selection is the guiding process. "Every visible living thing is a multicellular organism. It is made up of many, many incredibly small organisms that behave very predictably and simply. A human cell is no more complex than any amoeba. It possesses a cell membrane, DNA, a nucleus, and the means to transcribe the DNA into proteins. In fact, human macrophages move and even eat in much the same way as amoebas. They will manipulate and selectively destroy their intracellular matrices to extend parts of themselves to move around, and they will engulf smaller organisms in exactly the same way. And creatures in transitional periods between unicellular and multicellular states can be found all over the place. Slime molds, for example, are simply colonies of amoeba-like organisms that move as one mass to find food. This is what develops on dog vomit and spilt milk that is not mopped up. This transition from a unicellular to a multicellular state is very demonstrably possible." --> By my opponent's explanation, he is conceding the complexity of cells and organisms. He quickly goes through the processes, but lets look at the transcription part. Turn this argument against him. "Polymerase accessibility to chromatin is a limiting step in both RNA and DNA synthesis. Unwinding DNA and nucleosomes during polymerase complex binding and processing likely requires priming by chromatin restructuring. The initiating step in these processes remains an area of speculation. This review focuses on the physical handling of chromatin during transcription and replication, the fate of nucleosomes assembled on DNA during unwinding and processing the chromatin substrate, and how these alterations in chromatin structure may affect gene expression. Transcription or replication may alter chromatin structure during synthesis, enabling regulatory factor binding and, potentially, future rounds of transcription. As chromatin remodeling and transcription factor binding augment transcription and replication, and are themselves increased by these processes, a temporal model of structural alterations and gene activation is built that may be more circular than linear." Oncogene (2001) 20, 3094-3099. --> Furthermore, cross apply my contention I to his point. "And, of course, there is the problem of evil adapted for this debate. If there is a "force" or a designer with the power to mold life to its whims, why is life imperfect? Why are there genetic flaws? Why do our air and our food both go in the same hole? Why are the human vagina and anus so close together that before the advent of health care, many women would get infected by their own bodily fluids when giving birth? An intelligent designer capable of shaping the direction of speciation would have to be intelligent indeed, and yet there are glaring "design" flaws." --> I never stated that the designer is perfect or benevolent. E.g. Computer programmers make mistakes in games all the time. These are called "glitches". Almost all creations and designs have imperfections to them, ID never says that it doesn't. "And why would such a powerful, (almost?) supernatural being stop at life? Why would it create imperfect living machines while leaving the basic laws of physics intact? Why does the force that presumably creates and shapes life not levitate rocks or create golden staircases to the moon? This universe is far too simple and mathematically consistent to tolerate something as grandiose as a euphemistic god." --> The universe is far too simple and mathmatically consistent....really? "This is a short note on the spatiotemporal complexity of the dynamical state(s) of the universe at subhorizon scales (up to 300 Mpc). There are reasons, based mainly on infrared radiative divergences, to believe that one can encounter a flicker noise in the time domain, while in the space domain, the scaling laws are reflected in the (multi)fractal distribution of galaxies and their clusters. There exist recent suggestions on a unifying treatment of these two aspects within the concept of spatiotemporal complexity of dynamical systems driven out of equilibrium." H.C. Ruso --> Furthermore, turn the mathematical consistency part against him because how can a universe that was someone created sporadically in-tune with perfect math. Math shows a line of order to the universe. A type of order that cannot be created by randomness and probability. E.g. To balance an algebraic expression, and mathematician must be present. In this case, there needed to be a "mathematician" to set up the mathematical laws of the universe. "It is not falsifiable, and it is therefore intellectually dishonest, even cowardly, to promote it." --> Anything can be falsified. If a designer can be disproven, i.e. by way of proving that the universe was either infinite or created from nothing, then ID can be thrown away. "the reasons it holds for abandoning evolution are not compelling." --> The resolution doesn't say that evolution would be thrown away. It only stated that it is