Evolution, the theory that all life is the result of purely undirected processes, is probably false.

Evolution has been around as a fact for 148 years, in basic form since 6 th C BC – all I CAN do is "parrot" the information. If I had a new, novel approach, I wouldn't be here on Debate.org. I'd be picking up my Nobel prize. In order to be clear, I will continue my arguments from R1, then I will address my opponents R2. 7.Evolution is mindless- cells contain information, so ID is the only way it could have gotten there. Correct – evolution is completely mindless. There is no goal. It is a product of genetic mutation and natural selection. The mutations are random, usually resulting from outside influence, such as radiation, chemical exposure, viruses, or hypermutation, a the process that affects only immune cells,in which we achieve immunity to pathogens. (This is not passed in the genes to offspring.) But natural selection, the "action" of evolution, is not random. An example – ID loves talking about the eye, so I'll begin there. Let's say, that there is a species of worm that is eyeless. As a result of some outside influence, say radiation, a mutation in its genes occurs. Now this is not apparent in Worm A, but when it reproduces with another worm, the offspring all exhibit the mutation – a light sensitive cell near its head, Also remember that the population of worms around Worm A are also subject to mutation from the same influence, but as mutations are random, other genes are affected, producing other random mutations – for example, most mutations are neutral – the offspring show no change from the parents; and some are detrimental, some worms now glow in the dark, some have two heads, and some are born inside out. (This is MY story, work with me here.) I must note that a majority of mutations are actually harmful – it is a rare mutation that is beneficial. So, all the worms that got the short end of the evolutionary stick are doomed. The receivers of the neutral mutations have exactly the same chance of success as their parents did. But those rare ones with eye spots – they are better equipped to find food now, since they can sense light, dark and movement. They are better able to evade predators, and they can better find the algae they feed on, by following the light. They breed with each other, their genes are passed along, their population grows, and as they compete with the eyeless worms, they push them to extinction. Viola – Random mutation and natural section equal evolution. The above is a simplistic representation, I know, but shows my point. The information in a cell is selected for, it requires no outside intelligence, unless you consider the Sun intelligent. Snoopy - I am questioning the ability of RANDOM MUTATION to produce traits that natural selection can then act upon. For your answer, see above. 8 ID is simpler than evolution, which is in the realm of UFOs, and the New World Order. ID is obvious- why investigate when the answer is right there. Evolution is exotic. This is nonsense. Evolution explains without a designer. Why make up a designer when there is no need for one? To quote Chet Raymo - "Let's get this straight once and for all: Evolution by natural selection is not a theory. It is a fact! Scientists are not slavishly attached to Darwinism because of some anti-religious prejudice or desire to evade God's moral law, as the fundamentalist preachers insist, but because it is a logical necessity." Mr Raymo's use of Occam's razor is correct, but there is another aspect of it – If a current scientific theory adequately explains something, it is foolish to trash it and make up something else. ID explains nothing – saying something intelligent did it begs the question – what something? Where did that something come from? We can observe and test evolution. You can't do either in ID. I will delve deeper into why ID is bogus later. 9.ID should be accepted, since opposition to it is ideological, not scientific, since ID implies God, or a Higher Intelligence. If we teach evolution, we are teaching atheism. You can accept it all you want, it does not mean it is true. Where, praytell, is God denied in Evolutionary Theory? He isn't. We could just as well say God is the cause of abiogenesis, then allow evolution to take over. This is what many Christians do. Opposition to evolution is scientific – because ID is not scientific. ID is not falsifiable. A good scientist would reject or revise the evolutionary theory based on the facts that are progressively presented. In fact, evolutionary theory has been revised many times over and will continue to be revised in the future as the facts demand. This is not, as it might first appear, a weakness, but in fact an example of the scientific process at work. Science accepts nothing as 100% proven and is always ready to change its mind when new information is discovered. Evolution and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Many religious people reject evolution because they believe it denies God, and particularly his role in the creation of life. In fact science is agnostic and evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It simply posits that life can and has changed over time. The evidence that supports evolution is inconsistent with the literal interpretation of many creation stories, implying these stories need to be understood allegorically. But something can be allegorical and still be true. R2 - Evolution is indeed a fact. Evolution has been observed. Please see links– http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.newscientist.com... Quote from article - Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen." "Evolution may be true, but it cannot be fact." What?! A fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. Evolution meets this definition. Only the theory (the explanation) is open for debate. Snoopy - In other words, evolution is not necessary to explain life, since we already know of a force that can produce the information required for life: intelligence. Intelligence is not a force in its own right- it is an attribute of a conscience . There is no proof of such a conscience – so your point is moot. So why is ID not science? Several reasons. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. ID is neither. It offers no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic - ID is not. An intelligent designer would be supernatural. A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. ID does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Science cannot explain everything at present – but we should never use the unscientific to explain what we do not know. The Theory of evolution is far from complete - more answers are revealed all the time. But to say "an Intelligence designed it" begs the question - Where do you go from there? Stifling, to say the least.