Science does not disprove intelligent design

To begin with, we will need to contend with the idea of disproving, since it will show itself to be very abstract in this debate. To understand this, one must first understand the concept of scientific theories. A theory is not held to be true by definition only due to the fact that there might, somewhere, be questions the theory might not be able to answer. But, due to the fact that a theory manages to answer all the questions we know of today, and offers an explanation shown by evidence to be viable as to problems we face today, a theory is true until proven otherwise. We can see this very well in the example of gravity, the theory of which is still, as is obvious, a theory. Yet, we do not make it a daily habit to walk off edges of cliffs. On the other hand, intelligent design wishes to make itself an accepted explanation, that is, answer, to the same questions we use other theories (the theory of evolution) to answer. To do so, it must assert itself as a hypothesis and subject itself to the scientific method. [1] According to the method, a hypothesis competing to be proven as a theory and to be considered true indefinitely must be testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design is neither. It fails to even compete with any other theory used in modern science due to the very fact that it can't be proven completely wrong - to prove something wrong, there must first be evidence in support. As long as there is none, intelligent design is false until proven otherwise, and considered disproven by its very nature. It answers none of the questions we have answers to today (supported by evidence) thanks theories subjected to the scientific method, and cannot even be considered scientific. It is worse than disproven - it fails to even reach a phase where one can rationally speak about proving or disproving it, as a result of the fact that better explanations exist to all the questions it is supposed to answer. Answering questions posed by the scientific community is how one proves a theory correct, therefore this also indirectly disproves intelligent design. To conclude this elaboration about disproving said hypothesis, intelligent design is:a) Disproven by its very nature. b) Indirectly disproven through proof of other theories/hypotheses. Now onwards to my opponent's arguments regarding intelligent design itself. To begin with, my opponent attempts to prove that creation and science are compatible. Sadly for him, they are not, due to the fact that creation cannot be considered a viable scientific hypothesis until proof is offered in support; that is, until it fulfills its burden of proof (see Russell's teapot [2]). To claim its compatibility with science only due to the fact it hasn't been proven wrong is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Furthermore, the argument my opponent attempts to use to prove intelligent design is the argument of first cause, which is truly, as has been remarked, overused. And will now be disproven. This claim holds two fallacies in its very exposition:a) Removal of criteria of proof. My opponent claims that everything must have a first cause, therefore the answer is a creator. However, by furthering this line of deduction, one concludes that a creator must then also be subjected to having a first cause. Magically, however, he doesn't. Unless an explanation is offered as to why a creator should be exempt from this criteria, the deduction fails. Claiming that a creator is outside the space-time continuum is only a further removal of criteria of proof - firm explanation or evidence needs to be offered instead of withdrawal. b) The argument is a non sequitur, even if one is to ignore a). It is postulated that a first cause is necessary, thereore God. This is huge and pretentious leap, and it does not follow from the premise of causation (even if the premise were to be true - this shall be discussed) that a creator is necessarily the answer. Now, as to the argument of causation. My opponent claims that everything must have a first cause, but the space-time singularity which creates this universe is an exception to that claim. Unlike my opponent, I shall explain my postulation. About 5*10^5 light years away from the Earth is a wall of radiation known as cosmic microwave background radiation [3][4]. This radiation is a flashback of an explosion compatible with what we call the Big Bang, both in structure and the approximate time of creation. The wall of CMB radiation is extremely important to our understanding of the universe, because by measuring the scale of entrance of matter into the wall of radiation, one can determine whether the universe is flat, or closed. A flat universe, corespondent to a scale of 1° , would allow for creation ex nihilo (the other two types are correspondent to 0.5 and 2° , respectively). Research has proven that the scale of our universe is exactly 1°, allowing for creation ex nihilo from a supercondensed space-time spot of potential energy that is the singularity. The singularity itself is mathematically necessitated, for there can be no pure void in physics (such a term cannot be defined). Following from that, the Law of the simplest beginning [5] mathematically necessitates something which is not matter, but potential matter, the nature of which will be to simply exist - with this, intelligent design, and a creator, are one again rendered unnecessary, because there are, and always will be, better explanations. Back to my opponent. SOURCES: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Lawrence M. Krauss: A Universe from Nothing, 2012. / C. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence M. Krauss: A Universe from Nothing, lecture [5] . http://www.infidels.org...