Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Well, first off. Creationism is the same thing as intelligent design. This was ruled in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, with Judge Jones ruling that intelligent design is 'a mere re-labeling of creationism'. While not the definitive proof that they are the same thing, I can't really be bothered making a big point of this because it is not what this debate is about. Either way, I don't see a problem with you using the word 'creationism', it changes very little in my view. Good Luck, I'll attempt to refute your points then I'll move on to present my own. ---------------------------- To say that we should stick to our presuppositions, does simply not make much sense at all. I'll agree that we both come into the debate with such presuppositions, you seem to be wanting to argue from a supernatural standpoint, which is impossible by definition. You're attempting to turn this debate into one about the existence of a god, whereas it is no such thing. The resolution is clear 'Intelligent design is not a scientific theory' it says nothing about how you must argue, I have no problems with you using the bible to attempt to prove why intelligent design is a scientific theory. You can very well keep your presuppositions, all I ask is that you justify them, you, however seem to think that this is an unacceptable request. There is no requirement upon accepting this debate that you must attempt to scientifically prove the existence of a god, go for it in any way you see fit, however do not make up new rules of the debate and then claim that I lose if i do not obide by these new rules. The resolution is clear, the definitions are clear, and nowhere does it say you should argue in any specific way. Indeed, me disproving your 'theory' does not even make me the winner in this debate either, nor you attempting to disprove evolution, that's not the debate at all. The burden is clear, I must show why intelligent design (or creationism) is not a scientific theory and you must show why it is a scientific theory. You can argue using the bible, or any way you want but in order to win this debate, you will have to meet your burden, trying to disprove evolution doesn't make intelligent design a scientific theory. ------------------------------------- I realise this debate is not about evolution vs intelligent design, however I feel compelled to respond to my opponent's supposed total destroyal of the theory. Those reading this debate with the intent to vote, may skip this part as it has nothing to do with the debate. Let me first say that if you want to challenge a theory as established as Newton's Laws, do it in the scientific arena. I find it disgusting when people claim that they have 'disproved' a theory through a simple post on an internet forum or a google search. There are legitimate, hard working scientists out there doing real experiments and writing real papers while some people just sit at home posting any old tripe they come across and call it the definitive disproval of a theory. I can tell you from experience, science is really hard work, I can't even imagine the amount of effort that goes into formulating these theories. To suggest a simple post on an internet forum will disprove a theory which has been tested relentlessly for the past 150 years is frankly insulting. Do you honestly think that what you've posted destroys evolution? Don't you think just one of the millions of scientists working daily would have noticed this? Anyway, onto your article let me point out quickly to you that -It is not from an unbiased source (answers in genesis? come on...) -Barely anything is cited in the article (meaning the author is just using his opinion) -The author has done no studies, and has no scientific experience what so ever. -The author actually barely any case against evolution at all. Most of it is just misinterpreting evolutionary theory. But ignoring all this (which I'm sure the many people who read this do anyway). I'm just going to point out three of many mistakes made by the author of the article. I don't see a need to go too in depth here, I've already drifted too far off topic. 1- "Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts." Dead wrong. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the most rudimentary scientific principles knows that genetics is supported 100% by evolution. It does not disprove and it certainly not an enemy. Evolution has been proven through the use of genetics and many genetic sub topics involve evolution, such as the scientific field of molecular evolution. 2- "While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance" Sigh, I'm guessing the author has been living under a rock since birth. Darwin had extensive testing to formulate his hypothesis, he travelled the world for five years aboard the Beagle, gathering evidence. Since then, evolution has been thoroughly proven beyond a reasonable doubt through countless examples of observation in labs, fossil records, and an unprecedented convergence of evidence from all realms of science. 3- "Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die" *Facepalm* Why is the author looking at natural selection in terms of only one generation? This shows a total lack of understanding of the legitimate theory that the author is trying deperatly to disprove in order to satisfy his own dogmatic beliefs. I've just skimmed the surface of this deeply flawed article you've decided is indisputable proof of the fallacy of evolution. ---------------------------------------------- Back on topic. I make my case by definition, my burden is to show that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. So looking at the definition of scientific theory it is clear that intelligent design (creationism) is not a scientific theory. "A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." Let's go through some key elements of a scientific theory and compare it to the idea of intelligent design. Experimental evidence- No, there is no experimental evidence which suggests that we were created by an omnipotent power. Predictive- No, nothing can be predicted with intelligent design because it is the assertion that everything that currently is, always was. Nothing is gained at all, and it makes no predictions about our natural world. Testable- By definition, no. The supernatural cannot be tested by the natural. All attempts to do so have failed. So I point out that by definition, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.