"Studies of the origin of the first life form , the origin of the earth , and the origin of the universe DO form a large part of intelligent design . Of the several `` different scientific diciplines `` refered to above , they all have one thing in common since there is only one basic alternative to intelligent design , and that 's undirected , random , happenstance processes . For purposes of this debate , can we come up with one general two word phrase for the `` different scientific diciplines `` - a phrase perfectly comparable to intelligent design , which `` theory of evolution `` is clearly not ? How about `` happenstance origins `` ? Since you declare that intelligent design is not science , you have to have a criteria for science that intelligent design does n't fit . Does `` happenstance origins `` fit the same criteria ? If there is no way to test or falsify intelligent design , there is no way to test or falsify happenstance origins . If intelligent design is n't repeatable , happenstance origins are n't repeatable . Other scientists ca n't apply a scientific method to happenstance origins to get the same kind of results as the original scientist , and on and on . Evolutionists imply that with time , they may be able to scientifically get to the bottom of happenstance origins . That 's no more ( or less ) plausible than intelligent design advocates claim to be able to scientifically get to the bottom of intelligent design . If you demand to know how we can prove intelligent design is false or true before we consider it as science , why ca n't the same be asked of you before you consider the progressive steps of happenstance origins to be science ?"
"Happenstance origins is my term , taken from two easily definable words . It means origins without intelligence . Origins from random , unguided , natural processes with no supernatural guidance . It is the first of about six different processes that make up the broad term `` evolution `` . It 's a process that any opposition to ID has to have . It ca n't be addressed , and it 's no more or no less scientifically equal to the unaddressed question of where an intelligent designer came from . If the unaddressable consequential steps of one lead to science , then the unaddressable consequential steps of the other equally lead to science ."
"If there is no way to test or falsify intelligent design , there is no way to test or falsify happenstance origins ."
"It 's no more or no less scientifically equal to the unaddressed question of where an intelligent designer came from"