Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

***NOTE: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.*** I am a creationist. The difference is, intelligent design concludes that God created the universe, and the backed off. Creationists believe that God is still very involved with His creation. However, since they both assume that the universe was created by God, it will be enough for me to defend. If I use the term "creationism" rather than "Intelligent Design", please understand that they both presuppose the same thing concerning the origin of the universe. ********************************************************************* This should make for a very interesting debate! I see that you have debated this issue before, and have a respectable win/lose ratio, however I am going to present a different set of arguments, and see how my approach affects the outcome. With that, let the debate begin! Many, many Atheists come into this debate with the ideas that: 1) They want their Chstian opponent to argue scientifically, not Bibically 2) Factual evidence should be found apart from the Christian God I say simply these cannot be the terms of the debate. As a creationist, I come into this debate with presuppositions, as do you. In asking me to debate apart from the bible, basing my facts on nothing but the world around me, you are asking me to throw away my presuppositions, while you keep your own. This would make for no debate. There is an issue then. You come into this debate with presupposition of your own, while I come into the debate with presuppositions of my own, my presuppositions differing radically from yours. What then are we left with? It is simple. When I base my thought processes and presuppositions on the Bible, I have a perfectly plausible theory called "Creationism", or "intelligent Design". Since I connot, in a fair and balanced debate, strip away your presuppositions, nor you mine, You must challenge my basis of thought. There is no such thing as "bare facts". If you strip away my presuppositions, then I am not able to make a alternative interpretation of facts. I will defend my theory based on my presuppositions, and you must try to disprove my theory by challenging my presuppositions. My presuppositions are: 1) There is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God and creator. 2) The Bible is the infallible word of God. ********************************************************************* Now I will build a defense of my position based on my biblical presuppositions. What I am going to do is show you how the Bible gives me the right basis and correctly interpret the facts around me. You and I both see the same facts, but use our presuppositions to interpret them differently. I will show you how the Bible does not contradict science, but rather is consistent with it. ***GENETICS*** --Why it disproves Evolution-- Since day one Evolutionists have had problems with genetics. Even as Darwin was researching at Galapagos, claiming that one animal could evolve into a completely different animal and basing his theories on under tested ideas, Gregor Mendel was, by careful experimentation, proving that even individual characteristics remain constant. (http://www.answersingenesis.org...) For further information, I would highly recommend that you read the rest of this article. --Why it proves Creationism-- Based on this alone we cannot prove Creationism. What we must recognize, however, is that while this idea in very INCONSISTENT with the theory of evolution, it is very CONSISTENT with the theory of creationism. This is evidence for Creationism, and Creationism, therefore can at least be recognized as a hypothesis. Given all of the evidence encompassed in the feild of genetics, I think that genetics alone is enough to classify it as a scientific theory. With that, I will await my opponent reply! Thanks! Renzzy