Evolution is a legit scientific theory, whereas Intelligent Design is not

This debate has been made impossible to accept, and if anyone wants to actually take on this debate, then these are the guidelines:1. You must be knowledgeble about this topic2. You must either have completed THREE serious debates on the main site, or be someone who I've been debating on the forums within the listed sources.3. You should NOT have a history of continually forfeiting in your debates.If you wish to partake in this debate, please drop me a line in the comments, and please also use the comments if you want to clarify the rules as well as add any other definitions for useful terms you believe we will use in this debate.This debate is inspired by recent exchanges I have had on the forums (1)(2), in which there have been significant differences between what I have posited and what ID proponents have posited. Therefore, I would like to settle this on an actual main page debate. I will be arguing for evolution as an actual valid scientific theory, and against intelligent design as I consider it to be pseudo-science. Con will look to assert the opposite, that ID is an actual valid scientific theory, while evolution is a psedo-science.Before we begin, I will provide a list of definitions for useful terms that will be part of this debate:Evolution: the gradual change of a system.Biological Evolution: the gradual change of organisms through genetic variation.Intelligent Design: the idea that all life traces its origins back to an intentional act of creation by an intelligent designer.Hypothesis: a theory that makes a prediction based on certain grounds.Peer Review: the process of experts within a field checking over each other's work to check for errors from a position of expert knowledge.Scientific Theory: a falsifiable model describing an aspect of the world based on a particular hypothesis, checked against the results of multiple carefully controlled tests.Falsifiable: a statement that has a practical means (logical or experimental) of being proved false.Scholarly Articles: pieces of writing by experts in a particular field, usually regarding a scientific theory or hypothesis, that have undergone the peer review process by the appropriate professional fields.This debate will also require some rules:Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance only.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.-4a. Sources must be given for any arguments made. A failure to do so from one side should result in an automatic sources and conduct awarding of points to the other side.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.And finally, we should clarify the debate structure. Debate Structure:Round 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Opening arguments and clashRound 3 and 4: ClashRound 5: Clash and closing argumentsI look forward to having this debate, with whomever chooses to accept it.Sources:(1) http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.debate.org...