Intelligent design is not scientific

"Scientific" is a very vague and general term. Defined as only "of or relating to science" it comes to an argument to determine what truly relates to science. Categorizing a theory of our creation as this so called "Pseudoscience" does little for a theory that fundamentally admits to needing faith.So con admits that intelligent design is pseudoscience.It is very difficult to discuss Intelligent Design without mentioning Faith, and I would like to be the first to bring it up. One cannot argue that Intelligent Design does not take some level or a strong level of Faith, however faith is not "unscientific." The definition I will use for faith is as follows, strong belief or trust in someone or something.Con is using a partial definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.The full definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.By definition a scientific theory needs evidence and the full definition of faith shows that if you need faith then you don't have evidence because it's the belief in something for which there is no proof.Intelligent Design admits to its necessity of faith, while other theories deny their necessity. Scientist teach that organic matter came from inorganic matter. Scientist do not know how this happened, when it happened, or where it happened, yet they teach that it happened despite any evidence of it happening.First of all it's called abiogenesis. Second while scientists don't know completely what the process was they have been able to simulate the conditions of early earth; which is where and when it happened; and produce amino acids and other organic molecules. So while we don't understand it completely, we do have evidence of it. Abiogenesis is to long to go into right now but here's the article from wikipedia on it: http://en.wikipedia.org.... It takes faith in scientists and this theory to believe its plausibility. For the theory of macroevolution, one must have faith that this world is old enough and rich enough for different kinds of animals to change from one kind to another.Again there is evidence so it doesn't take faith. We have boat loads of evidence to prove the earth is old enough for evolution, the second part about being rich enough is kind of vague but please be aware; the standard creationist model of a bunny giving birth to a snake is a completely inaccurate picture of evolution.Also one must have faith to believe that a statistical miracle in Genetics can continue to happen over and over again in a relatively short period of time.It's not a miracle in genetics; it's punctuated equilibrium: http://en.wikipedia.org...There is no solid evidence of any of change of kinds, or macroevolution, yet we are taught that it in fact happened.In fact there is plenty of solid evidence; we have the fossil record which gives evidence for evolution: http://www.agiweb.org.... We have experiments that show evolution happening: http://en.wikipedia.org.... We have evidence of common descent; a core idea in evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org...; Also Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.With that much evidence it takes a LOT more faith to say it didn't happen. For a theory that is said to be based on "Logical, Factual, Evidence" it also requires a large amount of faithWell the evidence I've presented above seems to be logical, factual, evidence. It has so much evidence what you're saying is the equivalent of saying that the theory of gravity, or general relativity requires a large amount of faith. SO EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH; RATHER IT TAKES FAITH TO DISBELIEVE IT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.CONCLUSIONMy opponent has agreed that intelligent design is pseudoscience which is by definition not science. Con then brings up the idea that faith is not unscientific; however I showed that it isn't by definition. Then con brought up the red herring of evolution requiring faith which I disproved. So during this debate con forfeited, used a red herring fallacy, an incomplete definition, and conceded to intelligent design being pseudoscience which means he has conceded that intelligent design is not scientific. SourcesEvery link aboveandhttp://en.wikipedia.org...