Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

I thank RainbowDash52 for his response, however I do feel concerned that my opponent is using the terms confirmation and falsifiabilty in non-scientific ways.Confirmation:My opponent seems to have confused Intelligent Design in general with whether or not advanced space travel is possible. Quoting again from the agreed upon definition: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is... repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] It should be immediately obvious that travelling to the moon and cloning animals is evidence respectively that we can utilise space travel and genetic manipulation, and nothing further. It cannot be said that humans landing on the moon is evidence for an intelligent designer, as the moon landing is physically possible whether or not we are intelligently designed. I ask for my opponent, if any variant of Intelligent Design (including the alien variant) has been confirmed by observation and/or experimentation to simply provide me the published, peer-reviewed literature. However, as I think both my opponent and I know, there will be scant luck in finding an article titled "Alien Intelligent Design confirmed by moon landing."My opponent says whether or not peer-reviewed articles exist is irrelevant to the question of if ID is a scientific theory. This to me seems to be confusing a scientific hypothesis (in which he would be correct) to a scientific theory. A requirement for a scientific theory, as mention in the quote above, is to be repeatedly confirmed in the scientific field. How someone can claim something is scientifically confirmed but be unable to provide any scientific literature demonstrating this is honestly confusing to me.In order to help my opponent in his search for evidence, I wish to point out that confirmatory evidence can be judged quickly on one easy question: "If the evidence was the other way, would it disconfirm the theory?". For example, with the moon landing, we can see that even if humans had not managed to land on the moon that there would be no outcry from the Intelligent Design community. Indeed, ID was prevalent in laymen before and after the moon landing.Falsifiability:Unfortunately, my opponent makes another mistake in this section, when he infers that the success of natural processes would falsify intelligent design. This is trivially incorrect if we use the given alien example, as it is of course perfectly logically possible for the aliens to have been created by natural processes, and Earth life by aliens, thus showing that a complete natural explanation in fact has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.To illustrate the concept of falsifiable predictions further, I shall present several examples:1. The theory of evolution predicts tranisitional forms from one species to the next as time progresses. Thus, finding a fossil of a descendent older than that of its ancestor would overturn evolution. Ie, if we found a chicken in the precambrian.2. General relativity predicts that the curvature of space depends on the energy content. Thus if we found increased energy content did not increase curvature, general relativity would be overthrown.3. The heliocentric theory predicts that the planets revolve around the sun and not the earth. Thus if we found planetary motion with the earth as a focus and not the sun, the heliocntric theory would be overturned.Notice that in every example the theory makes a prediction which can be direclty tested and observed, and the prediction makes a risk - that is, if we did not find what we expect it disconfirms the theory.I would like my opponent to provide a unique and falsifiable prediction which can be observed currently in the natural world or in experimentation that would cause ID to be discarded if incorrect. ConclusionI still await scientific literature on the falsifiable predictions made by ID which have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.