Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

As discussed in the debate topic, a scientific theory is: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2] ...Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions... This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5] This gives us at least two criterion for a scientific theory: 1. It must be repeatedly confirmed. 2. It must be testable and falsifiable. I contend that neither are case for Intelligent Design.Confirmation:Intelligent design has never been confirmed through the scientific method, by observation or via experimentation. Credible journals lack any peer-reviewed publications supportive of Intelligent Design, and one can see that a search of the internationally renown Nature journal for Intelligent Design only brings up criticsm of intelligent design or studies of it as a social development [1]. I therefore invite my opponent to provide examples of peer reviewed articles supporting intelligent design. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this is not a conversation on evolution, and an article bringing up a perceived problem or inconsistency with evolution is not presenting evdidence for Intelligent Design. It is also important to note published articles for ID do exist, indeed there are several ID targeted journals which are not credible. I am therefore asking for published articles to be restricted to known, high quality journals.The lack of publicaions (and thus peer-reviewed, credible confirmtion) is nicely summed up from the results of the famour Kitzmiller v Dover School Trial [2]. From page 87 and 88 of the official findings [3], we have: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory...On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe))... In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))."FalsifiabilityThe largest problem with Intelligent Design is that it makes no predictions, there is no way to falsify the idea. My opponent is free to provide methods by which ID can be falsified to show me wrong. This comes from the simple fact that an intelligent designer is consistent with any evidence. For example, looking at the similarity of human and chimp DNA, it is often argued to be consistent with ID, for the designer to use a similar code. However, were the similarity not the case, it is also consistent with ID if the designer decided to use a different genetic code, and thus both scenarios are always consistent with ID. ID propoents often regularly confuse attacks on evolution as predictions for ID [4] (please see page 71 and 64 of [3]).I would therefore request from my opponent how ID is falsifiable, and ask why ID has failed to gain traction and peer-reviewed suport in the scientific community [5].[1] http://www.nature.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikisource.org...[4] http://www.ideacenter.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...