The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed

Inferred Design, for this debate begins with these premises. P1. An intelligent designer constrains, refines, arranges natural processes to produce a fabricationP2. A fabrication will have a significant number of attributes arising from the design processI intend to show the premises are logical, the evidence accurate, the inferences sound, and therefore the resolution is a reasonable assertion. I present 4 arguments1. Non bias investigation of the evidence.2. The Inferred Design principles defined for this debate.3. The process as it applies to the basic cell.4. The chemical arrangement of information. My opponent will have to debate that it is not reasonable to assert the resolution based on the evidence at hand. He will have to show that based on the evidence, it is more likely that an abiotic (natural) process formed the basic cell. Or he will have to show that the process of Inferred Design can not be used to draw scientific conclusions from.1. Non bias investigation of the evidence. I will address the red herring in the room. Inferred Design, henceforth abbreviated as ID, is a scientific method. It postulates that based on the final product we can assert with reasonable validity if a subject was naturally occurring or produced by an intelligently governed process. Some will say of the basic cell:P1. The living cell was not intelligently designed because there is no evidence for an intelligent designer. P2. There is no intelligent designer because there is no evidence of anything being intelligently designed. C1. Where ever your at in the cycle refer to the other premise. This is circular logic. ID (Inferred Design) makes no case for the nature of the designer. A beaver builds a dam. When the ID process is applied to a beaver dam, it concludes it was designed. It makes no assertions to who, what, or where this designer is. It does not even correlate to how intelligent the designer is. It merely states there is evidence that exhibit attributes of design. Formalized as: A(natural) + B(intelligently governed) = designed. So in the case of the beaver dam, it would look like this: A (wood, mud, water, environment. .. natural occurring) + (wood unnaturally shaped, mud unevenly applied, environment can not account for arrangement) = (intelligently designed. maybe by a beaver or a man or something else? ?? )Creationist can be formalized as B(God made the wood. .. ) + B(God made the beaver) = God designed everything. The mirror to this, as is most adopted by atheist and scientist is A(wood, mud, etc. . is naturally occurring) + A(beaver is naturally evolved) = everything is naturally occurring. If these are the views some one holds to, then there will be no evidence possible to change their mind. It requires a circular reasoning to be accepted. Some may argue that if it is man-made it is designed, If man didn't make it, it is natural. If your of the naturalist persuasion then why would man not be a product of environment and considered natural? The delineation is subjective. I contend that it is based on bias and ego. Prescribing a special honor on to mankind with out supporting evidence or rationale. A chimpanzee can stack 3 boxes atop each other to get a banana. The chimpanzee designed a stack of boxes for a purpose of getting a banana. Inferred Design is testable and verifiable. An ID proponent can go into a laboratory with either a creationist, a naturalist, or anyone for that matter, and investigate the natural processes that form a subject. If before going into the lab the ID scientist hypothesises that something is designed. He can record all the design attributes. Other scientist can investigate and experiment to see if the attributes can not be described by a natural process. after the evidence is collected if A+B=designed turns out to be A+0= Natural. Then the ID proponent will have to accept the results. Science is constantly growing and it grows based on the evidence. There was a time when the status quo of the academic and scientific community thought the universe was eternal and infinite in all directions. Einstein to conform to this Argument of Popularity injected a cosmological constant into his formulas for special relativity. He claims this was the biggest blunder he ever made. The Big Bang for the same reason was initially ridiculed. The Inferred Design process defined for this debateFor this debate it will be a dimensional analysis of the following attributes:Attributes of Design:A. ScopeScope will be the subject and one level down. It is important to describe scope so the sample space is delineated and to see what component parts are taken into consideration. B. EnvironmentIf a part exists then there is some environment in which the part could arise from. Use the evidence at hand to determine the properties of the environment. If unknown only infer what needs to be inferred. Assume natural if unknownC. Form naturally follows Material Morphology This states that the shape and edges of a part are directly related to the material the part is made of. Each breaking of this natural principle is a point for design. Each repetitious breaking, as a whole, is counted as one point. D. Micro-Environments are naturally compatible, nested or convergentIf the environment needed for one part is destructive to another and can not be nested to sustain 2 parts it is a point for design. When applied to set of similar subjects (Set A: butter, yogurt, cheese etc. .. ) (set B: Hammer, screw driver, pliers, etc. .. ) A standard deviation of plus or minus 10% of the total number of points is arrived at. It's interesting to note that when applied to some designed subjects the result is "Natural". Especially obvious in cases of fermentation. Beer, wine, butter, cheese though known to be of complex manufacturing tend to conclude a natural process. I think this is because the principles are non temporal and do not accurately account for changes in temperature. As well as the scope does not take into consideration how the yeast cells got there to begin with.