Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

I'll address the various points under headings so its easier to see for our voting audience. Ok, I get the feeling that you have a large lack on understanding of the nature of science and how it generally works. Allow me to correct you on a few things. -------------------------- Opinion Science isn't a matter of opinion, or at least it isn't to the extent that you are saying. Science isn't a round table discussion where each party says 'well, ok you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that'. In a way it is a harsh battleground where everything has to be supported by solid reasoning, evidence, and the scientific method. There is intense competition between scientists for the 'next big thing', while at the same time there is also a profound respect for the evidence and empirical research. Going past the fact that there is no such term as 'evolutionist' to say that it is just a matter of opinion is simply ludicrous. The evidence that suggests that humans evolved gradually and share an ancestor with the primate simply cannot also suggest that humans we're put on this earth six thousand years ago with the magical flip of a switch. It has nothing to do with opinion at all. Science is an opinion to the extent that certain scientists interpret evidence slightly differently and debate with their current understanding of the topic to choose the best option. This cannot be compared to a creationist basing their knowledge off a book and claiming that that is somehow science. It is just insulting to the highest degree when religious zealots say that the reason that their idea isn't taken seriously is because of scientific bias. This is totally wrong in every sense of the word. Take cold fusion for example. This was subjected to the very same scrutiny that intelligent design has been put under and in the end it was totally dismissed by the community. Did these cold fusion proponents lobby the supreme court? make documentaries claiming that the world is against them? No. To compare the extent of religious dogma and the scientific method is simply to spit right in the face of every real scientist out there. Science by definition requires an unbiased mind, now in practice this may be near impossible but the system of peer review and criticism makes sure that only the best ideas turn into legitimate theories. Scientists have no problem admitting that they are wrong, I have yet to see a religious person do any such thing. You want me to enter this scientific debate with your presupposition that the bible is the inerrant word of god. I am having none of it. I haven't made any restrictions on how someone needs to argue and it is wrong of you to attempt to force me to argue in the way you want. I am not restricting you, and by all means you can use the bible to show that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Go for it. ------------------------------------- Experimental evidence for the big bang Oh man, I find it difficult that someone could make such an uninformed statement. Allow me to enlighten you: Expansion of space- It has been observed that distant galaxies and quasars are redshifted (this basically means that the wavelengths emitted from them are getting further and further away). This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. (Wikipedia, featured article, locked) Now what does this mean? Well, it suggests that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere as suggested by general relativity. The metric expansion of space is shown by direct observational evidence of the Copernican principle and the Cosmological principle. Cosmic microwave background radiation- Well without going into too much detail cosmic microwave background radiation is radiation that has been observed to exist throughout the entire universe. This radiation contains irregularities, which vary with respect to the region that it is contained in. Now this suggests that small thermal fluctuations rapidly expanded into the size we see in our universe today. Galactic evolution- Well, basically we would expect young galaxies to look much different from new ones if the big bang model (which suggests the first galaxies appeared roughly 1 billion years after the big bang). This is what has been observed today, distant galaxies (and therefore older galaxies) appear much different from the galaxies we see near us (younger galaxies). -------------------- Bible being historically accurate- Oh please, the bible makes no risky claims what so ever. It comes from a time when a wheelbarrow would be considered the epic breakthrough of the ages. If the bible had made predictions about DNA, then maybe I'd give it some credit but as far as historical accuracy goes, its dismal. By the same stretch of the imagination, the Koran has some historically accurate passages should that be taken as scientific proof of all passages in the Koran? The Torah has some historically accurate passages, as does nearly every bit of ancient scripture, there is an element of truth in many things. But that doesn't change anything. Once again you're showing a total lack of knowledge in science. But anyway, just to humour you: - There is no evidence of the Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. - King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David - In the house of the rolls ... in Babylon" This is the only library building mentioned in the Bible. The author mistakenly thought that Media was a part of Babylon - Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event. -Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees." ------------------------------------ Predictive means that a theory can be used to predict certain phenomena. For instance, Isaac Newton's laws can be used to correctly predict the amount of force applied to an object, also, it can be applied to many other practices outside of classical mechanics including fluid mechanics. Evolution, for is predictable and has been proven in labs throughout the world. As in, certain cells have been subjected to a different environment, scientists have interpreted evolutionary theory to make a prediction as to what should happen and sure enough it happens. Intelligent design is not predictable because it asserts that everything is as it is. It is an intellectual roadblock. -------------------------------------- Answers in Genesis 1) Yes, a christian source is bias. Put it this way, this guy honestly thinks he is going to hell if he does not believe what he believes. It is a matter of faith. To claim that someone who accepts evolution is just as bias as s christian source it dead wrong. There is no consequence if someone who accepts evolution decides not to. 2) He is not stating facts because he hasn't cited anything, he hasn't been saying where he got it from. This really does highlight your lack of scientific knowledge because this is one of the most rudimentary scientific principles, cite your work. 3) I don't make any claims which warrant a citation, but you would think at least the claim that "While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance" would require at the very least, a citation. Alas, I am running out of characters so extend my argument by definition as it has not been addressed at all.