Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

"Well, Intelligent Design is not responsible for explaining why organisms have vestigial organs. " - Seeing that vestigial organs are an argument against ID, yes, it is responsible. Don't dodge it. Vestigial organs show that if there were a designer, he/she/it was not intelligent. Why put useless things in organisms like an extra tailbone? Or a hip bone in whales? Whales don't use them anymore. (. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...) It is an argument that nothing was intelligently designed, as that part of the organism is utterly useless. Evolution accounts for it by the familial link between whales and their ancestors that walked on land - with hip bones. Since evolution is a scientific theory for the variation in species, it has nothing to do with the origins of life. Astrophysicists and biochemists deal with that. - You have a nice list of uncited facts. They do not bolster ID. Not one of your contentions mentions the design of different species. Not one of them is in SUPPORT of ID. Some of them are knocks on evolution. Here's an example of what you're doing: Let's say I ask you why the sky is blue. I say it is because people painted it. You somehow prove I am wrong and say "Because I proved you wrong, my theory that the sky is made up of blueberries and that's why it is blue, is correct! " Proving something wrong doesn't mean you are proving your theory correct. This isn't a yes or no question or something, with only two options. You have not at all disproved evolution, but even if you had, ID would not be a valid theory. "Evolution could easily be considered to be taken from an atheist perspective, as ID is considered to be taken from a religious perspective. Shouldn't "separation of church and state" apply to "separation of lack of church and state"? " - Um, no. How can you separate a lack of something and something else? How can you separate nothing and something? Evolution is not atheist. It is legitimate science. It does not attack the idea of a god. God is still a perfectly legitimate idea and in fact, evolution and God can be integrated. Evolution is not atheist. - To conclude, my opponent has not shown in any manner that ID is science. I beg of you to please show me scientific support (that means the scientific method was used, as stated earlier), that an Intelligent Designer exists. Please, just show me TWO scientific facts that show that some sort of designer created every single species of organism on the earth. Not things that may contradict evolution; I want you to show me scientific evidence that a designer that created all the different species exists. My opponent has not displayed any scientific evidence in support of a designer. He has shown nothing of the sort. He has spread out uncited "facts" that have little to do with the argument. His sole cited source is a book by an author whose book talked about a PBS dinosaur and toy dinos along with geologic time. The ID wikipedia page basically is in my favor in every single way, so I'm unsure why he posted it. .. Finally, the death blow is that my opponent's concession that ID is religiously motivated. He made that mistake and tried valiantly to defend it. However, he also proved himself that ID is unconstitutional. ID is unconstitutional. He could not rebut this. Therefore, it cannot be taught in schools. This is only one of the reasons. ID is just not science. It makes no claims that are substantiated. It does not follow scientific method. It's a negative argument - he tried to disprove evolution (unsuccessfully) but that does not mean ID is valid. It's not an either-or situation. Evolution has 150 years of evidence on its side. You see evolution in action today as viruses evolve to survive our vaccines, for example. ID has ZERO years of science and several years of pseudoscience on its side. I have made compelling arguments that ID should not be taught as science because A) It is unconstitutional in its clearly religious motives, B) It has no evidence supporting it, and C) It does not follow the rules of scientific inquiry as laid out in the very definition of science.