Intelligent design is not science

Yes, I have brought up what is taught in science classrooms in this debate. I did so because the ID movement has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with what is taught in science classrooms. Real scientist spend the majority of their time doing science, ID'ers spend the majority of their time trying to get their 'belief' in 'science' classrooms. (If you don't believe me, you can find a nice article that contains the background, history, and major players of the movement at the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design)(1) You made a statement to the effect of; big bang is taught in science classrooms, 'therefore'(2) it is classed as science. I am afraid you have it exactly backwards. We don't classify something as science 'because' it is taught in classrooms. We teach something in a science classroom 'because' it is classified as science. The big bang theory got into classrooms the same way all theories do; First something is 'observed' that needs an 'explanation', one or more 'hypothesis' are formed, those hypothesis are tested, some are disproven. Occasionally one will pass every test we can think to throw at it. Only the very few that pass 'every' test get promoted to the highest level of scientific understanding, a 'theory'. Then it takes years sometimes for a new theory to make it into the classroom. The big bang theory has passed every test. Every measurement by every astronomer has shown that the universe is expanding in the way the theory predicts, and it has withstood the test of time. That is why it is in the classroom. Intelligent design has not even gotten past the hypothesis stage in this game. All they have done is 'observe' that some things in the universe 'appear' to be too complex to have just happened. So they 'hypothesize' that there must be an intelligent designer that created them. So far there has been no 'testing' of this hypothesis, so at this stage in ID's development it would be scientifically irresponsible to consider it a 'theory'. ID is just a hypothesis that a lot of people 'believe' and belief is not one of the criteria used in determining what is taught in the classroom. Furthermore, their whole idea that "we are too complex to have just happened, therefore there must be a designer". Leads to an infinite regression. To illustrate I will use their watch example. "A watch is a complex object, it is so complex that if you saw one for the first time you would rationally determine that it is so complex there would be no way for it to come about by random events, therefore it must have had a designer, and sure enough it does, a human designer. A human is several orders of magnitude more complex than a watch. If a watch is too complex to come into existence without a designer, how can a human that is more complex come into existence without a designer?" If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, you end up in an infinite regression. The 'designer' is, and must be, more complex than the 'designed'. If humans truly have a designer, he/she/it must be more complex than the humans he/she/it designed. This complex 'designer' of humans is also too complex to have just happened, so he/she/it must also have a designer… ad infinitum. Now to address some of your other points; 1. You make the comment that "big bang… is some stupid theory to try disprove ID." Once again you have your facts reversed. Big bang theory predates the ID hypothesis. In fact, it is the ID hypothesis that was developed to try to disprove a theory. But that theory was not the big bang theory. It was Darwin's theory of evolution. All the controversy about ID is focused on the biology classrooms, not the physics, or astronomy classrooms. (Why is that?) 2. You make several comments about the big bang being a "…false claim, a theory built on 'not knowing'". I am afraid you are confused about 1. What the theory claims and 2. What it is built on. First, the big bang theory does not 'claim' to answer the questions you bring up so it cannot be a "false claim". Second, your assertion that the theory is built on "not knowing", does not make any sense. A theory is simply an 'explanation' of 'observed' phenomenon(3), and cannot explain what is unobserved. The why, where, and cause of the big bang have not been observed, so the theory does not claim to know the answers to those questions. 3. To find out why your views are irrelevant please watch the video that can be found at (3) 4. In response to your view that the table I mentioned earlier supports the ID hypothesis, I would like to point out that the table does not show that "believers of Intelligent Design believe in the scientific 'theory' of evolution" . It shows that 'Christians' believe in the theory of evolution. (4)While proponents of ID 'are' mostly Christian, they are the ones on the 'other' side of the table. Why else would they be trying so hard to disprove the theory of evolution? 5. In response to; "My definitions are not wrong… 'my' big bang claims we came from nothing". I would suggest you check a dictionary, and familiarize yourself with the "standard big bang theory". Wikipedia is a good place to start.(5) In anticipation of an attack on the credibility of Wikipedia as a source, I would like to point out that each page contains many links to other sources of varying credibility, it is a source of sources. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) Note: I am using a single quotation mark to add emphasis to a word (no bold or italic functionality here) (3) http://richarddawkins.net... Video explaining what science is and is not. (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... Table is half way down page, shows Christians, not proponents of ID. (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... Standard Big Bang Theory.