Resolved: The idea of Intelligent Design is a product of religion, not science.

Intelligent design was for a large number of years the respected and the overwhelmingly accepted theory as to the origins of life. Even prior to Paley there were overwhelmingly compelling arguments as to why life should be seen as the product of an intelligence. This view persisted until about the 1860s when Darwin's explanation of the mechanism managed to unseat the previous, flawed, though ultimately scientific hypothesis. In general science does not concern itself with the workings of the supernatural. This isn't because science is blind to such explanations but rather because science tests such explanations and to date has found them wanting. We almost always find a much better naturalistic explanation for anything initially attributed to the supernatural. This is simply a product of the truth of existence and the product of science. There is no supernatural forces and there are no ghosts, gods, aliens or ethereal creator intelligences. This doesn't make such explanations unscientific, it simply makes them wrong. Paley argued quite well that the products of nature are far distinct from the products of simple forces like wind, erosion, gravity and time. If you look at the contrivances of nature you quickly surmise them more along the line of a pocket watch for engineering effort than a stone of natural design. When we look at the products of nature, the truly astounding natural productions we see the 'intelligence' that went into making them. We see that the products of nature and the products of the intelligence of man have similar causes, or that that hypothesis is at the very least a reasonable one accepted by reasonable scientists of the time. The core of intelligent design is that things really do look absolutely brilliant. In science things tend to follow a standard line of understanding. First we have a mystery, then we have a problem, then we have a mechanism. We use to no idea how the universe began, it was a mystery. Now, with modern cosmology we have some good ideas, some good inklings as to how and when, it is a problem. We don't yet have the mechanism to make it all make sense and answer pretty much all of our questions... but we're getting there. In the world of biological science we are there. We have the mechanism. We understand evolution by natural selection is responsible for all the life on this planet. But that isn't to say that those grasps at truth back when we were turning what was once a mystery into a problem. Finding data, digging up fossils, figuring out that things became more complex as time went by, and yes noticing the amazingness of the designs of nature were not part of science. The original intelligent design was very much the product and conclusion of scientific endeavors at the time. After creationism (pure religion) got knocked down by the supreme court the religious people pushing the claim quickly decided to fall back to the scientific understanding of the 1600-1850s as a way of slipping God into the debate and claiming originality. This is certainly dishonest. This is certainly wrong. The original arguments of Paley and the like were quite compelling and quite scientific. Even though many people noted that you couldn't conclude God as the conclusion is a non sequitur the conclusion of intelligence is almost inescapable. This was very much a boon for the religious at the time as it left the door wide open to conclude God though the conclusion itself was problematic. It was effectively destroyed by Darwin. I daresay the argument from design was the best argument for God to have every existed and Darwin made it moot. However, this is simply science and religion finding some brief synchronicity. The modern ID movement is pretty well a nostalgia trip down memory lane of disproven bits of speculation, it is dishonest and reprehensible. Where does this leave our debate? "Negative- Must show that Intelligent Design as defined is not a product of religion, but is strongly grounded in science and has strong scientific roots." Intelligent Design as defined is not the product of religion it is the product of science with strong scientific roots. Admittedly it was promptly abandoned at the time of Darwin and the only people who currently attempt to bring the poor bastard back from the dead are religious, because at one time the science hadn't yet disregarded the incorrect. Intelligent Design is scientific. Today it's stupid and anachronistic and religious. This is only because the real science of biology overshadows the old hypotheses, not because those hypothesis are completely devoid of scientific origin.