Science does not disprove intelligent design

Therefore, without further ado, let's begin. To begin with, I shall comment on my opponent's opening statement. It is true that, perhaps, there are some things out there in the vast cosmos that we could be wrong about. However, we haven't as of yet uncovered such a truth, and we cannot predict whether or not it will ever happen. That is why scientists consider something to be true or false in relation to the current state of affairs, hence the terms true until proven otherwise / false until proven otherwise, which I've already commented on. Some things are claimed to be proven, some to be disproven, in a relation to the present; this is where the scientific method comes into play. We cannot talk about disproving something definitely, for we might always be wrong, and never hold on to any truths. We must set ourselves a certain prism through which to look. This prism is the present and what matters is what we have proven or disproven now through use of science. An example for this are mathematical axioms. [1] Axioms cannot be defined and cannot be proven. For all we know, they could be a virtual fabrication of reality. But, since they function perfectly in answering our questions and problems in the field of mathematics, we consider them proven as true. If I were to contradict any of the axioms, I'd be contradicting the nature of mathematics as we know it, and therefore my claim would be disproven by empiricism and empirical experience - it would be disproven by its very nature until potentially proven otherwise. Indeed, science isn't able to definitely prove the non-existence of anything. But, for something to even enter the scientific community as a possibilty, it must have substantial evidence in support. This is why all claims which fail to present such evidence, and are contradicted by empiricism, are considered false by default, disproven until it is shown otherwise - this is the scientific method and this is how, in the modern world, we determine truth. Thus it is only correct and appropriate to discuss the term disprove in this context. It is, therefore, perfectly correct that intelligent design is false until proven otherwise. Intelligent design is supposed to be used as a viable explanation for the development of life and the universe itself, and therefore it must be shown why that should be considered a good explanation. Currently, all the evidence points to the fact that intelligent design was unnecessary for any phase of the creation of life and the universe, and other theories, like evolution, offer better claims, substantiated by evidence, to offer answers. Our current experience and evidence shows that we are to consider intelligent design false until we have some evidence it could be true - this is the only way we can filter the truth from nonsense. And yes, we should also consider the existence of unicorns to be a false premise. Belief is not a word accepted in the scientific community, and belief should never come into the sphere of proof and disproof - but it keeps insisting to compete on par with science. Hence, it will be subjected to the same methods and rules, and it won't have a good time. My opponent is correct when he says God cannot be defined. So why should we even accept such a hypothesis? Why would we consider a possibility of it being correct until it is shown to be so? It is a matter of belief, not of scientific proof, of subjetive and not objective thought, and therefore the objective community will consider it disproven - hence, in general, we can safely claim it is disproven. Everything else, every attempt at proving without proof, is removal of criteria of proof, a fallacy my opponent commited again in the last round - if a deity isn't meant to be percieved, it isn't meant to be considered true, simple as that. If the hypothesis wants to enter the world of scientific perception, its nature as "unpercievable" will force it to be considered false. "Perhaps we were all made as human beings last Thursday with our memories made with us. "Perhaps. But we've reasons to claim otherwise. Your claim contradicts all human experience and rationality, and if you don't offer proof, we'll be completely correct to dismiss it and consider it disproven by empiricism, because, as was well quoted on your part:"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. "And finally, my opponent completely ignores my refutation of his ex nihilo nihil fit argument, and yet claims that "In this way, the claim that humanity, the universe, and all living things were made by a higher power at the beginning of time is something that cannot be disproven. ". As a matter of fact, no, we don't. We claim what we observe by science, which, as I've described, shows us with certainty that ex nihilo creation is possible and probable without any divine help. Believers claims otherwise, but this is once again a matter of belief. If you wish to legitimately defend your claim, you should offer an explanation as to why your claim should be correct - the same thing you ignore as criteria for intelligent design. After this refutation, back to my opponent. SOURCES:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...