It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

99% Species Extinction/VestigialityFirst, intelligent design does not necessarily mean perfect design. Maybe the design was perfect at the start, but the creature evolved over time (I do support the validity of natural selection, I only oppose evolution when it comes to genetic mutation causing the creation entirely new species). I don't really see this as a direct argument to intelligent design - it is to broad and there is too much information we do not know. Also, we don't know everything about every creature on Earth. The human appendix is a very good example of this. In The Decent of Man, Darwin argues that the appendix serves no purpose, and therefore is proof of evolution. However, it was later discovered that the appendix actually serves important functions in the human body (see source for details).(http://www.evolutionnews.org...)Genetic Mutations/Unguided processes...I would first like to point out that the source you cited for the ape example states that the chromosome fusion is a hypothesis, but the it goes on to give a list of evidence that supports the hypothesis, but nothing against it. So why is it not theory or law then? See http://blog.drwile.com... for some evidence that does not support the hypothesis. Either way, though, it doesn't change my argument. I won't deny that sometimes mutations can be good. However, when you take it to the next level and say that somehow, there were enough random genetic mutations to go from a single simple organism all the way up to an extremely complex human being cannot be proven by science and that is where evolutionists must take a leap in faith - faith that someday, somehow science will prove it just as believers in intelligent design have faith that their God will some day prove His existance to the world.The Fossil RecordThe validity of the Bible has nothing to do with my argument. The Bible states in Genesis that God created each different category (plants, animals, humans, fish, etc...) on different "days" (the length of a "day" is up for debate). The fact that scientists have found these separate "explosions" seems to line up perfectly with this account. The validity of the Bible does not change what is says, or what the evidence says, therefore in this case, it can be used as a valid scientific argument.Looking at the Smithsonian website you cited, the exhibit does not appear to be in support of human evolution from another species. It is simply showing human fossils from different times that have a wide variety of structures, and yet, the basic structure remains the same. I do think it is possible that humans have adapted to differing conditions over time, but I don't see any evidence that humans evolved from apes.Darwin's TreeSimilarities between species is not proof for evolution. An intelligent designer would have, in fact, most likely used similar components of design in different places. Do humans, as designers of machinary, always use completely unique parts? We reuse components and ideas all over the place, and an intelligent designer would have been likely to do so as well. As far as making a perfect tree, all Dawkins is doing is cherrypicking parts of the evidence and using it to prove his claims. Maybe it does create a nice tree when you are only looking at the genes of a few species, but what happens when you try to connect everything together? Structures overlap across species and contradictions abound. Modify the theory all you want, but the evidence simply lines up better with the theory of intelligent design than it does with the theory of evolution."Intelligent design depends on an unprovable creator" - true, but evolution depends on unproven science, and on data that does not yet exist. You yourself admit this when you say that the theory of evolution has to be modified as new data becomes available. You are making the assumption that all of this new information will support evolution, which cannot be proven.Intelligent Design Using the Scientific Method Observations: Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce specified complexity (aka CSI) (complex=unlikely, specified=matches an independent pattern). Stephen C. Mayer - "Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or personal agent." To sum it up, observations in the real world show that CSI originates from intelligent sources. Hypothesis: If a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. This is logical, since we are basing the hypothesis off of real-world observations. Experiment: Scientists perform tests on natural objects to determine if they have CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC), which exists in systems composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to fail. This is tested by simply reverse-engineering the structure and testing whether or not it needs all of its parts to function. Conclusion: Irreducibly complex systems would be unlikely to evolve because there is no way the structure could function without all of the parts in place. Evolution depends on the slow process of parts evolving one piece at a time as natural selection weeds out bad parts and good parts remain. You may argue that the structure could have evolved as a whole, however, the chances of that occuring for one structure are astronomically slim, so for thousands, if not millions of these structures to have evolved on their own would be nearly impossible. "Furthermore, intelligent design undermines the beauty of nature and the complexity of life. If you really appreciate the world around you, take the time to study the evidence rather than making empty-headed claims that our beautiful world could only have come about with a designer." I beg to differ, intelligent design certainly does NOT undermine the beauty of nature and complexity of life (what brings you to that conclusion?!?), and at the very least supports it more than evolution. As I have shown above, my claims are scientific, not empty-headed, and are supported by many leading scientists throughout the world. Final Statement First of all, I would like to congratulate my opponent on an exellent debate. He brought up many things I had never thought about before and challenged my beliefs, which is good. However, his arguments were not enough to refute the my claim that evolution requires as much faith as intelligent design. I showed this by first defending my 5 areas where the theory of evolution falters, then showing how one can come to the conclusion of intelligent design through the scientific method. You cannot disprove any claims of the invalidity of evolution by simply stating that it can be modified to fit the evidence later, because by doing so you are saying that you have faith that science will come through and prove your theory correct.