Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

My entire argument rested on the statement that Intelligent Design is not a scientific statement. I did not have the time or space to explain why it is not a historical idea either, due to the lack of character choice. I shall now go into an explanation why Intelligent Design is not deserving for its place among social sciences. Firstly, I cannot percieve your argument is referring to some subjects, such as economics, and is referring to only History and Religion. Therefore, I will criticise its placement among these two subjects specifically. Science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." (http://www.google.co.uk...) Now, the Social Sciences: Anthropology, economics, education, geography, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, sociology. (http://justbeyondcommonsense.com...). Liberal Arts encompass Humanities and the "Pure" arts (the 3 sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics). There are many sources that can be used as cross-reference, including wikipedia (which comes with its own citations as well), the Institute (http://www.intute.ac.uk...) and wisegeek (http://www.wisegeek.com...). The statement that Philosophy or Religion is a social science is wrong. As I previously stated, a science is something that is testable, predictable and observable. I can test how as the tax rates rise, riots increase. I can predict that riots take place as taxes increase. I can observe the rots when taxes increase. Now, cannot observe the universe forming from a figure. I cannot predict the universe forming from a figure with any good reason. Nor can I test the universe forming from a figure. This falls under the realm of historical testing. And, in the words of Bart Ehrman, a historian and NT scholar, "The canons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I'm not saying this is good or bad. It's simply the way historical research works." Now, is Intelligent Design historically accurate? Well, let us look at what we don't know about Intelligent Design: The nature or even if there is a nature of the designer What he actually created, other than life When he did so Where it started from Why it happened What happened before then These are all Question that, not only cannot be answered scientifically, cannot be answered at all. I shall list some things that help prove something historically: Primary evidence of the event taking place, which excludes other possibilities from taking place. Comtemporary accounts Enemies or neutral accounts of the event Rational likelihood of the event The person's own words on the subject Not only is there none of this for the deity's creation of the Universe, it is impossible to retrieve evidence. So what my opponent is advocating is teaching something with no proof, evidence, or reason to believe is true. Inherently, wanting to teach something that is currently false. Also, I am going to address some of the points my opponent said. 1 - Conduct is behaviour. If someone swears the entire debate, then they have lost conduct marks. Also goes for claiming victory on technicalities sprung from falseoods. 2 - Spelling and Grammar. If you can't make yourself clear and concise, then you've failed at your attempt to debate, plain and simple. If you're mother tongue is not English, just say so, then concessions can be made to alleviate for this problem. 3 - Who was more convincing. If you don't find this relevant, then I don't see why you are debating. 4 - Who used more reliable sources. If you've just BSed the entire way through the debate, and your opponent used sources but was clumsy, then this becomes extremely relevant. Also, it promotes people using sources, and double checking information, rather than making up what words mean. Just sayin'. Yes, I do also believe the debate is over. It is Danth's/Parker's Law. http://rationalwiki.org...'s_Law "If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. " Thank you for attempting to debate.