Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

Alright, I will put up my side of the argument, and thank you for responding. The reason why we should not teach evolution is appropriate science classrooms (appropriate meaning biology or science, I don't think anyone will argue we should teach evolution theory in quantum physics) is because Intelligent Design is not a theory, nor is it scientific. If it does not qualify as either a theory or a scientific statement, then it is irrelevant to be an option taught. Firstly, we need to define evolution. Evolution is the theory of which natural selection and genetic mutation occurs simultaneously to cause speciation and diversification.[1] Natural selection is a proven fact (see Hunting Hounds[2], Greyhounds[3], Darwin's Finches[4], and all other forms, which are well documented. I shall give links in the comment section, due to excessive amount of sources). Genetic Mutation is fact (the most obvious example is the Lenski Experiment[5]). These are not points of contention, as disagreement with these is disagreement with the scientific method, meaning disagreement with inherent science, which makes science redundant. Evolution is not a psychological belief on morality, nor is it a belief of how life came to exist, nor how life began, nor any other red herring is true. These ideas evolved (pardon the pun) because of the threat onto contending ideas. Now, Intelligent Design is not a theory nor scientific, therefore it is not something to be taught in a science classroom. Firstly, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...). Simply, it requires substantial evidence to change from a hypothesis to a theory. Heliocentrism is also a theory. To go from a theory to a Law, it requires a mathematical proof. Evolution cannot (or at least, has not) recieved mathematical proof of its ability to occur. Nor can the history of its occurrence be mathematically proven. There is, however, substantial evidence for its "occurrability". If genetic mutation occurs, and natural selection occurs, and this results in diversification of species, then evolution happens. Intelligent Design has no scientific foundations. It is based on the unscientific method of "it's not observable, not predictable, and not repeatable, but it is true". It does not stand up to the scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses (http://www.puicet.com...)(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)), therefore it is not scientific. I would like my opponent to address this point, and say what is required for something to be "scientific" with some backing behind his idea. If he cannot meet this requirement, he cannot prove Intelligent Design is "scientific", therefore reducing to 0 the sensibility of its place in science, even if it is just a scientific classroom. I always asked people who believe this motion to be true (or equivalent), that if they could do an hour long lesson purely on Intelligent Design? Remembering the mention of "God" is irrelevant, not provable by the scientific works, nor is legal in America, nor is... you get the idea. Also, bearing in mind criticising another idea is also not proving a point, it just leaves with the idea that "someone (no idea what or who) creating something (again, no idea what or who) and that is how we have complicated life. Seems redundant, really. So, as it is not scientific, nor is it a theory, I think that makes it redundant and unwanted for a science lesson. I shall now address the points made by my opponent : R1 - "ONLY teaching what the scientific, religious, or any other community holds to be true, to a certain degree, entrenches "group think." I am not saying "not" to teach it, but I am saying that it is not something to be taught in a science classroom. The idea that science can be "changed" by religion is one of the major problems of the world. You state how religion has much sway, agreed, but religion is swayed as well. Science is not swayed by anything but science. Because the Pope does not believe in evolution, it doesn't mean that genetic mutation among humans no longer occurs! Unfortunately, religion does now seem to have an impact, or at least, soon will. (http://www.youtube.com...) That video is part 1 of a documentary called "A flock of dodos". The documentary is about the creationism/evolution "battle". In the documentary, it reveals to us that Intelligent Design is the new "buzzword". It is creationism, but not religious, so it holds more merit in science, but mostly more legal merit. Yes, it is a stunt used to allow Creationism in classrooms. R2 -- Good Theories. A good theory is one that stands with evidence and against scrutiny. You don't "follow" a theory, I am sorry. It either happens or doesn't. You also seem to come up with the idea that pursuing things that are wrong seems to be a good idea. May I have an example? r3 -- I am not saying we shouldn't teach it at all -- I am saying we should not teach things that do not stand up to the scientific method in science classes. Theology goes in philosophy classes.