Intelligent design is not scientific

Before I counter my opponent’s points I will first make arguments of my own. WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS UNSCIENTIFIC PSEUDOSCIENCE:a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Indicators of Pseudoscience: 1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements So does intelligent design make vague claims? Yes it simply claims there was a designer without specifying or suggesting who might be the creator. Failure to make use of operational definitions Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible Well evolution explains everything just as well as intelligent design without some vague “designer.” So yes intelligent design does make more assumptions than the other explanation Darwinian evolution. Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science Let’s see; irreducible complexity anyone? Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply. Well that so called designer can do pretty much anything so no; intelligent design has no boundaries. 2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment. Well that designer again can do pretty much anything so that means that it can’t be falsified. Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant. Yes, intelligent design experts are telling “evolutionists” to demonstrate that their theory is false when they are making the claim. 3. Absence of progress Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims [59] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia. “Everything is to complex too have risen by random chance; there must have been a designer;” and that’s the sum of Intelligent design’s argument and there’s nothing more. Lack of self-correction: scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[61] By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence comes up the intelligent design claims never change. 4. Personalization of issues Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results. They do it all the time. Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims. We’ve seen this happen. 5. Use of misleading language Creating scientific-sounding terms to add weight to claims and persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled. Remember irreducible complexity? Things in italic By Wikipedia^ Things in normal are my comment So seeing as intelligent design meets most of the indicators of pseudoscience it seems a safe bet that it is NOT scientific. "Intelligent design is at its core a theory of how the universe was created, no different than the theory of evolution." But it is different; intelligent design is pseudoscience based on an inherently unfalsifiable thesis. What you are describing is more akin to a religion than a science because it has no actual evidence of design. SOURCES: http://en.wikipedia.org...