"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 ."
"basic alternative to intelligent design undirected , random , happenstance processes How about `` happenstance origins `` ?"
"Happenstance origins is my term Origins from random , unguided , natural processes with no supernatural guidance `` It 's a process that any opposition to ID has to have"