Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

All of us are able to detect design. We all know, for example, that this page was not the product of random typing. A retreating glacier may create a mountain, but the glacier doesn't build a cabin on top of it. Reason tells us cabins come about through intelligent design. "No biologist denies that, on first inspection, complex life forms appear to be designed." Albert Alschuler "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." Albert Einstein. Pro writes about ID Theory..."It also implies being unbiased, which intelligent design proponents are clearly not. All but an extreme minority of ID proponents are religious" I believe that this is pro's problem. He religiously believes that science is an absolute truth, The U.S. Constitution permits scientific critiques of scientific theories but my opponent does not. When scientists constantly learn through empirical evidence that there are scientific problems with Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution such as, but not limited to...GENETICS: Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity, BIOCHEMISTRY: Unguided and random process cannot produce cellular complexity, PALEONTOLOGY: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils, TAXONOMY: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life, and CHEMISTRY: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery (How could a primordial soup arise on the early earth's hostile environment, or how the information required by life could ever be generated by blind chemical reactions? The astronomer Fred Hoyle claimed "the probability of life arising on earth (by purely natural means, without special divine aid)is less than the probability that a flight worthy Boeing 747 should be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard". The Intelligent Design movement addresses those who are willing to consider the possibility that the blind watchmaker hypothesis may be false. If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to "follow the evidence wherever it leads!" The science establishment generally sees the evidence as only supporting Darwinism, because Darwinism upholds and conforms with the widely held philosophy of methodological or metaphysical naturalism. Many scientists simply do not perceive any other evidence. They can't, because their methodological naturalism filters it out. For them, the most ID could prove is that science shows "there can be no scientific explanation of origins." Michael Ruse. "The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion." Hume in a rarely quoted part of "The Natural History of Religion "Scientific advances are made not by canonizing our predecessors but by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our successors." Prof James A. Shapiro "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Charles Darwin "I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." [Charles Darwin, Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859] Nature June 14th reports that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another refuting the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. This is just what the ID model predicted. Much like the letters in a sentence, DNA is made up of many smaller molecules strung together in a precise sequence. Though it can be arranged in any order, a random one will no more make a viable organism than random English letters will make poetry. Only those sequences that correspond to the "genetic code" can be read as plans for the protein "machines" that power our cells. This information is essential to life as we know it, but where did it come from? That question brings focus to a debate that's raged since Charles Darwin: Life, like poetry, appears designed, but is it? Darwinists claim it's merely the product of a long series of lucky accidents, sorted by the grim reaper ("natural selection"). But such evolution is something only reproducing life can do, and DNA is what gives life the ability to reproduce its vital information. It is therefore unclear how information-carrying DNA itself could have evolved. There are more theories than crime dramas on CBS, but few are as realistic. For this and other reasons, a growing number of scientists are rejecting the Darwinian claim that life is an accident. Intelligent design theorists note that DNA, as well as the protein machines it codes for, possesses "complex specified information" (abbreviated, coincidentally, CSI). This means it is both highly improbable (complex) and conforms to an independent pattern (specified). Design theorists argue that this failure to find a viable non-intelligent explanation for life's information should not surprise us; for in our experience, CSI is always the product of intelligence. An illustration will clarify: Imagine finding "I love you" scribbled on a deserted beach. A Darwinist might stand there wondering what unknown natural process produced the message, but most of us would conclude that someone had written it. Why would we think this without any direct evidence? Not because marks in the sand are themselves impossible for natural processes to produce; a mass of sticks in the tide might do it. And not because of the sheer improbability of the arrangement itself, for any other would be equally unlikely. We infer design because this improbable arrangement conforms to an independent pattern. Since the English language does not determine the movement of sticks in the tide, the possibility that they would just happen to produce "I love you" is not just remote; it's irrelevant. We recognize that this kind of specified complexity is always the product of design. An alternate explanation might exist (imagination is free, after all), but only an illiterate brute would fail to recognize design as the most logical explanation of a message in the sand. What does this have to do with DNA? It, too, expresses a highly improbable arrangement (in its molecular sequence) that conforms to an independent pattern (the genetic code). In fact, complex specified information is precisely what makes it useful to life on earth at all. If there's a problem with the illustration, it's that it's too simple. The DNA sequence of even the lowliest bacterium would fill a hefty volume if written out in English characters (yours, assuming you're a human being, could fill a million pages). If life's essential information were really like a message in the sand, the full text of Romeo and Juliet would be a closer analogy. In everyday life, we routinely infer design based on far less CSI than this; should we not conclude the same here? Evidence for irreducible complexity has never been found, ever. See Below website. http://telicthoughts.com... Neo Darwinism is losing it's credibility as science progresses and this is clear as six states are already teaching Scientific criticisms of neo darwinism. ID is obviously a scientific theory if congress is supporting that it be taught to critique neo darwinism in public schools. Charles Darwin himself said "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating & balancing the facts & arguments on both sides".