Resolved: The idea of Intelligent Design is a product of religion, not science.

The burden you are presented with is to show that 'Intelligent Design as defined is not a product of religion, but is strongly grounded in science and has strong scientific roots.' I'll show now, why you have not met your burden, and I will also demonstrate my burden that 'Intelligent Design as defined is a product of religion and has no scientific basis'. The first of the two of my points as to how you haven't proven your burden is your incorrect definition of intelligent design which does not coincide with the pre-determined definition required to meet your burden. Now, just for clarification your burden is. "Negative- Must show that Intelligent Design AS DEFINED is not a product of religion, but is strongly grounded in science and has strong scientific roots." Now moving on quickly to the agreed upon definition, we find that the definition disagrees from the one you have been making and claiming has scientific roots the whole debate. "Intelligent Design- A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent design)" The part you have seemed to repeatedly omit is the reference to the unspecified intelligent agent. You even go as far as to say 'there was never an omnipotent designer god in the concept'. However a simple scroll upwards reveals that not only is this a direct contradiction to intelligent design AS DEFINED, but it is required of you to show that the definition used is the product of science and not religion. Which you have not made any steps towards since the beginning of the debate. What has essentially happened is you have made your own definition of intelligent design (inconsistent with the one of the debate) which as you say does not require a designer (the logical fallacy of this need not be addressed here) and you've attempted to use this new definition to prove that it is somehow scientific. So I hope that the people judging realise this, my opponent has not been consistent with the definition to reach his burden, even going as far as flat out denying the agreed upon definition. Going by the actual definition of intelligent design which is used for the purposes of this debate, the definition that was agreed upon and the definition you need to adhere to in order to meet your burden, it is almost too easy to show how this is a work of religion and not science. As defined, Intelligent design is a conjecture claiming that the universe as a whole was created by an omnipotent power (whether this is a god, and whether it should be worshipped is essentially unimportant). Now, it is well documented that the beginnings of intelligent design/creationism are heavily set in that of the book of 'Genesis' as well as being core elements of the abrahamic religions. However even if we are to ignore all this evidence which is staring us right in the face, the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) While you may be aware that it currently has no scientific basis, it is rather easy to show that it never did. It involves an unprovable and unfalsifiable claim of an intelligent agent that created all life on earth as it is. Now the idea of things all being created may certainly be falsified, but the idea of a creator which is a core element of both intelligent design and its religious past. As I have stated before, for something to be the product of science, it must by definition be also a product of what science is defined as, which is essentially 'applied knowledge' and in a broader sense, the scientific method. Now, as I have demonstrated in previous debates, intelligent design (or creationism) is not a product of the scientific method and by logical extension is not the product of science. It is an idea based on religion, and based on the Abrahamic faiths. My opponent has failed to demonstrate how intelligent design, even his own definition, is a product of science. In reality, the designer-less intelligent design idea proposed by my opponent is essentially just that, an idea. No progress has been made in showing how it has its roots in science in the same way that Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers, Newton's Principa Mathematica, and The Origin of species are. All these examples are a consequence of or the product of science. Intelligent Design is not. To sum up, you must vote pro for reasons ------------------------ -My opponent's definition clearly varies from the definition required to meet his burden. Note that the definition given in round one is: "Intelligent Design- A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent design)" While the definition that my opponent gives is "there was never an omnipotent designer god in the concept." This fact essentially makes it impossible for him to achieve his burden, and thus makes myself the victor. -Intelligent Design AS DEFINED, is not a product of science because: - By definition, the unprovable and unfalsifiable (the creator) is a direct contradiction of both the scientific method and the concept of science as a whole. - It is not the product of the scientific method, any testing, a provable hypothesis or an outcome of any debate, it was and is an essentially forced idea not open for discussion. - To call it a product of science is to put it on par with the great works of scientific literature such as The Origin of Species, which is both ludicrous and insulting. -Intelligent Design AS DEFINED, is a product of religion because: - The idea of an omnipotent power is unprovable, yet believed in, this implies faith witch further implies religion. - Close to all proponents of intelligent design are religious. - The history of creationism (the early name for intelligent design) is credited to religion (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Please note that tests carried out on the idea of creationism does note make it the product of science, just in the same way that tests carried out on psychics doesn't make their predictions works of science. - My opponent has stated that creationism is 'pure religion' while the fact is that creationism and intelligent design are one and the same. I've demonstrated that, by showing that intelligent design as a concept is only about 18 years old as well as showing US courts ruled in the Dover case that intelligent design was 'sexed up' creationism. Creationism, which my opponent refers to as 'pure religion' is initial stages of intelligent design which my opponent also calls a product of science. This is both highly contradictory and proves my burden for me.