Resolution: Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory

I will use this round as argumentation and then conclude in the next and last round. What is science? Before I begin I would like to add something to the definition of science. Science comes from the Latin word, scientia, which means "knowledge. " [1] From this definition alone, any area that teaches us about the world around us or how it came to be should be considered a scientific pursuit, even if the effects of it can't be immediately seen or felt in the world around us. In fact, more than a couple hundred years ago, the scientists were the theologians and philosophers. Science gave philosophy a way of empirically testing theories and concepts, while philosophy has helped to develop the scientific method used today. [2]Until after the lifetime of Darwin, the developers of modern science were creationists, in that they believed in the supernatural origin of the universe and of life. Their number includes: Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, and many others. [3]Isaac Newton once noted: "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One. " [4]Not only were founders of modern science creationists, but the very concept of creation was a significant factor in the impetus for science. M. B. Foster, writing in the prestigious English journal, Mind, in 1934 observed that: "The general question arises: What is the source of the un-Greek elements which were imported into philosophy by the post-reformation philosophers, and which constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And. .. what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature by which the peculiar character of the modern science of nature was to be determine? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (p.448). Two Different Kinds of ScienceIt is a common misconception that the universe and all forms of life being created by God is not considered true science because science deals with theories that can be verified by testing. However, this objection is based on a misunderstanding of two kinds of science: empirical and forensic. Operation science deals with the world as it now exists and origin science deals with the past. Operation science is an empirical science that deals with present regularities, but origin science is a forensic science that considers past singularities -- the origin of the universe and life-forms. The "big bang," macro-Evolution, and abiogenesis belong in the realm of origin science, as does creationism. They were events that happened in the past and all we have are the results to test. Since there is no direct way to test a theory or model of origin science, it must be judged to be plausible or implausible, based on how consistently and comprehensively it reconstructs the unobserved past in conformity with the available evidence. If we are to reject Intelligent Design as unscientific, one must also reject macro-Evolution for the same reason. Intelligent Design is scientific. A creationist view of origins is just as scientific as an Evolutionist's view of naturalistic evolution. Both are origin science, not operational science. Both deal with past singularities and take a forensic approach by reconstructing a plausible scenario of the past unobserved event in the light of the evidence that remains in the present. Both use the principles of causality and analogy. Both seek an appropriate explanation of the data. Both sometimes appeal to a primary (intelligent) cause to explain the data. Archaeology posits an intelligent cause for pottery. Anthropologists do the same for ancient tools. Likewise, when creationists see the same kind of specified complexity in a simple one-cell animal, such as the first living thing is supposed to be, they too posit an intelligent cause for it. Their view is as scientific in procedure as the evolutionists when they offer a natural explanation for the first living thing. Likewise, the creationists' view of the origin of the cosmos is as scientific as is the evolutionists' position. Both use scientific evidence in the present. And both use the principle of causality. The creationist points to the evidence for the Second Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is running down as evidence that it had a beginning along with the other evidence for the Big Bang Theory. This, combined with the principle of causality, yields the conclusion that:1. The cosmos had a beginning.2. Everything that begins had a cause.3. Therefore, the cosmos had a cause. I believe it is quite evident that Intelligent Design is as scientific as Evolution. I look forward to our final round. [1] . http://www.sciencemadesimple.com...; [2] . http://www.experiment-resources.com...;[3] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 168[4] Netwon, Isaac, General Sholium in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, p. 369