Progressive Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution

Progressive Creationism: a combination between Intelligent design theory and the old creation model discarded in the mid 20 century that is much more aligned with science via evolutionary theory. So to everyone out there don't assume that this will be the same arguments presented by mainstream creationists. Darwinian Evolution: a philosophical extension to the scientific theory of evolution. It is the idea that evolution is an unguided process or a only natural process where there is no ultimate form of life that is the "target" of all this reproduction, mutation, and selection. In the debate, I will be showing how progressive creationist theory has more explanatory and predictive power over Darwinian evolution while my opponent argues for the other side. It really is that simple Since it will be just for 4 rounds and I will need to prove the designer exist first while staying scientific along the way, I will start now. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The Intelligent Designer has been discovered: Divine Intelligence Abstract My research topic is here to prove and reveal the designer as being divine through inductive method means and provide a viable (progressive) creation model of life. Results show that humanity is specially created. Introduction Many Intelligent design theorists insist that it is not required or important to prove the identity of the postulated designer who is supposed to be responsible for all the design in the universe. What my research demonstrates is who and what the designer is and can do, which enables a proper application of the hypothesis. In addition, the creation model of life, which has been discarded for good reasons in the past, can now potentially and adequately explain the origin and process of life from new found observations that could end the creation-evolution controversy. What I intend to show is that they can coexist with some exceptions along the way of course. Materials and Methods See predictions OBSERVATIONS The Beginning Borde, Guth, Vilenken developed a theorem that proves inflationary models must contain singularities [1]. At this point, called the initial singularity, gravity, space-time curvature, density etc. becomes infinite. In a place where the curvature in space-time is infinite or near infinite the laws of physics break down and do not apply, which means the aforementioned first law of thermodynamics would not hold inside a singularity and matter may be created or destroyed. They also authored the BGV theorem which proves that any universe that is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary [2]. This theorem does not assume Einstein"s equations and holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. In fact, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, their theorem would still require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began. One more observation seems to compound the idea, that there must have been a beginning, would be the second law of thermodynamics. A universe that exists infinitively in the future will come to equilibrium (heat death). Therefore, if a universe was also past eternal, then it should have already been in a state of equilibrium. The Finely-Tuned Universe The fundamental laws and constants of nature fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values ,within an infinite set, in which the right value was chosen every time. The slightest change in these values would prevent any kind of life from evolving or existing. Moreover, these perfectly fine-tuned laws and constants came into being right after the big bang, error free and without change throughout this process.[3] Let me explain what I mean by "fine-tuned for life". I am talking about fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life of any kind requires under the general definition of scientists presently use [4]. In other words, If the constants were even altered just a little, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve (In science, the meaning of the term "life" is not fully established or defined)[5]. How do we know the values are fine-tuned? We know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were smaller or larger. This means we don't need to know what values don't produce life, just the relevant values of the constants that do produce a life permitting universe. [6] REASEARCH QUESTION According to philosophy, there cannot be an infinite amount of time because Time is by definition a series of "moments". The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. Thus, if time was eternal in the past, we would have never have arrived at this point, which means there has to be an absolute first cause. This has been evident when scientists try to map and implement the idea of infinite "sets" upon the real world. It has "lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modeling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus" every single time [7]. Nevertheless, science has empirical evidence cementing the idea that the universe itself had a beginning starting with the Big Bang singularity. However, "this was not just any old bang from a simple beginning, but a great expansion of exquisitely arranged magnitude containing galaxies, planets, stars and all other heavenly bodies" [8]. The other important aspect of this extraordinary order following the big bang was the creation of our habitable planet Earth. So the question before us is this, if there is even a cause at all, what force is ultimately responsible for all the known phenomena and complexity within the universe? If a great order arose from an expansion, then it should be understood that the intervention of an intelligence was involved in every moment of this expansion. In the next round, I will provide characterizations and measurements of this cause. [1] http://arxiv.org... [2] http://arxiv.org... [3] John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" p. 288 [4] Paul Davies, "How bio-friendly is the universe?" International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-31. [7] http://arxiv.org... [8] Paul Davies, "Super force" , 1984 p. 84