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

Just because at a given point in time, a particular view was not unreasonable does not make that view scientific nor a product of science. It was not unreasonable to assume, say 4-500 years ago, that the earth was the center of the solar system. Like you say, it certainly looks that way, if we suspend our current knowledge of cosmology, then it certainly is not unreasonable. But is this fairly reasonable idea a 'product of science'? Absolutely not. Much like intelligent design being a fairly reasonable guess does not make it a work of science. To understand, what is, and what isn't a 'product' of, or to use a different term a 'consequence of' science, it seems necessary at this point to define science. "The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline." -Wiktionary Now, let's compare for a second the idea intelligent design to scientific theory of evolution, with the parameters that each must be a product of science. ID- is NOT learning acquired through the scientific method, nor the sum of knowledge gained from such methods. This is almost trivial to prove, and I'm assuming you won't disagree with me on this. Now is the idea the PRODUCT of 'acquired learning'? not at all. If anything it is a broad starting point, that has been essentially proven wrong. Something the product of bad science is still the product of science, for instance the idea of cold fusion is the product of science. It is the product of testing, the scientific method, and falsifiable claims. Now it turns out that the scientific community has essentially discarded cold fusion almost to the same degree as intelligent design, but this doesn't change the fact that cold fusion was the product of, albeit faulty science. Much like cold fusion was the product of faulty, or bad science, intelligent design is the product of no science. It wasn't the consequence of a falsifiable hypothesis, or any applied or testable knowledge whatsoever. No, it was and is the consequence, or product of religion. Evolution- I realise that this isn't an intelligent design vs evolution debate and am fully aware that you are a rational person and accept evolution. However, it cannot hurt to put things into context. Evolution, or more specifially, the theory of evolution is the product of science. It is the product of rigorous study, experimentation, documentation, debate, and most importantly, a convergance of evidence on an epic scale. It is totally the product of the strict adherance to the scientific method, the initial hypothesis, and following theory was falsifiable and fully testable. A quick comparison of evolution (or any scientfic theory for that matter) to intelligent design should yield the clear fact that intelligent design is not close to the product of science. You are also leaving out a very key ingredient to the proverbial intelligent design cake. The idea of an omnipotent, designer, or god as it were. Intelligent design as defined for the purposes of this debate requires such a being (which is essentially unprovable). The idea that this unprovable, unfalsifiable being, which is apparently responsible for all things as they are supposedly is 'strongly grounded in science and has scientific roots' is laughable. I put it to you, how is an untestable claim, which offers no new knowledge, predicts nothing, and has no experimental evidence supporting it in any way scientific. More to the point, how can you tell me that this thing is the product of science? A claim that is not unreasonable at any given point in time, is not the product of science. A product of science is something produced by science, produced by the scientific method and produced by skeptical enquiry supported by strong empirical evidence. Of course, like cold fusion, the interpretation of this evidence is often difficult to get right. However the premise of the matter remains the same. -- Let me just address some other of your points. >>I'd like for you to explain to me why Principa Mathematica is not a work of science. >>Sorry you're right, I got confused with the USA system, it wasn't the supreme court. However, there have been many legal battles about the religiousity of intelligent design, with the baseline sentiment being that ID is not a work of science, but of religion. >>In terms of Galileo, I see being arrested for a scientific work as a form of ridicule. >>Science thrives on debate, nothing inspires a good debate more than an obviously faulty idea. A faulty idea being accepted by 99% of mankind only adds fuel to the flames. >>Yes, intelligent design was actually obliterated. Pre-1989, intelligent design was called creationism, I personally see no greater destruction of an arguement by design than the theory of evolution. It's up to you to show me that intelligent design is at its core a fairly important insight. Sorry for the faily crappy post this round, I'm fairly tired and decided to post this now rather than wait until tomorrow.