Resolved: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Okay, from the beginning, there seems to already be some confusion about the definition of Intelligent Design. I honestly do not see how anything is changed from calling intelligent design 'theistic evolution' or vice versa. I haven't made a claim stating that theistic evolution is not intelligent design, so I don't really see what all the fuss is about. This isn't a debate about the substantiation of evolution, because frankly, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No, this is a debate about intelligent design being a scientific theory. My opponent has essentially changed nothing in my definition of 'intelligent design'. My definition- Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). My opponent's definition- Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the EARTH and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). Ask yourself, what, exactly has been changed? The word 'universe' and the word 'earth'? Is that it? Put simply, intelligent design is the assertion that an omnipotent being created something. Be it the earth, or the universe. Nitpicking about these things changes nothing in the definition, and changes nothing about the debate. Essentially giving up on defending intelligent design as a whole (which is not impossible, I could very well defend evolution as a whole just as well as I could defend it's many sub theories involving genetic drift, molecular evolution, and horizontal gene transfer). My opponent has decided to focus specifically on a self described 'sub-theory of intelligent design' in an attempt to prove his burden that 'Intelligent design (note, NOT just theistic evolution) is a scientific theory'. It should be clear to all, that even should my opponent succeed in thoroughly and decisively proving beyond any reasonable doubt that theistic evolution is a scientific theory, he would still lose the debate for the simple fact that this is not a debate about 'sub theories'. But of course, thats assuming he can prove that theistic evolution is a scientific theory. Which he can't. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Moving onto my case, I remind those paying attention agreed upon definition of a scientific theory. "A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." -Wikipedia (thank you for pointing that out) Let us apply these guidelines for the case of intelligent design as a scientific theory. Supported by experimental evidence- Clearly this is an immediate fail for intelligent design. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Even demonstrating beyond any doubt that a legitimate theory such as evolution is totally false (which would require extraordinary amounts of proof in its self), would not make intelligent design supported by experimental evidence. This is because of the scientific burden of proof, not only do you need to show why all other theories are wrong, but you must demonstrate why the theory you are presenting explains phenomena in a better way. Evidence to suggest that an omnipotent being created the universe/earth is currently non-existent. Predictive- Not at all. The idea that we were created is an intellectual road block. What can possibly be predicted with any accuracy once we surrender the idea that 'God did it'. If we are to accept that things are as they are, or, if we are to accept that a god created the earth, what can be predicted? The idea that an omnipotent power created us either as we are, or created the earth and the first living cells is academic treason. Testable- No. By definition, the supernatural (ie, omnipotent powers/gods) cannot be tested by the natural sciences. Even so, people have been trying to find scientific evidence of a god ever since the idea first came about. Everything from testing the effectiveness of prayer, to the bronze age idea of drilling holes into people's heads to find the soul, has failed. It doesn't take a genius to go through the other aspects of the definition of a scientific theory, such as logic, previous knowledge, and self-consistent model and see that intelligent design doesn't turn out too pretty. If this wasn't enough, my contention agrees with nearly every modern day scientist in the developed world. http://en.wikipedia.org...