Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Unfortunately my opponent continues to misunderstand how evidence works in scientific enquiry. A proposition has confirmatory evidence, if we observe something that would not be expected if the proposition was false. For example, if evolution was false, we would not expect to find transitional fossils, and thus finding transitional fossils is confirmatory evidence that evolution is correct.My opponent states that us developing [limited] space travel confirms intelligent design. But obviously we would not expect space travel to be impossible without intelligent design, and hence space travel and the question of whether or not we are intelligently designed have absolutely nothing to do with each other.I wish to clarify to my opponent that I fully understand that space-travel is a prerequisite for alien intelligent design. However, the question here is if intelligent design in general is a scientific theory. Having prerequisites is not the same as making testable, falsifiable predictions.My opponent then tries to explain his inability to find any credible scientific sources supporting this claims by stating science can be done anywhere, by anyone. However, the scientific process - creating a model, determining predictions, running rigorous experiments to test the model and having the results reviewed up experts in the field - is obviously not the same as arm-chair philosophy or thought experiments.My opponent again states that ID is incompatible with absolute confirmation of universal descent from evolution. This is obviously incorrect if we, just like in the previous post, take con's alien intelligent design idea - where alien life forms intelligent design a single species on Earth and it then evolves into all life seen today. More importantly, a scientific theory has to be evaluated on its own merits, not in reference to other theories. ID frequently also employs the reverse technique, by stating that if evolution is disconfirms, it supports ID. Referring back to a previous source (as new arguments and information should not enter a concluding statement), from the Kitzmiller v Dover trial [1]:"ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. ..."the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach ... all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” ...We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago."I thank my opponent for trying to provide some proper predictions of ID that allow it to be tested, though I find his source not credible. In the first post for scientific sources to be from credible and established scientific organisations and institutions, not from an author from the scientifically discredited religious organisation the Discover Institute. All 'predictions' made in the linked article are already expected under evolution, and would not disconfirm intelligent design if found wrong. For example, the third prediction is that genes and functional parts will get reused between organisms. Not only is this already expected from evolution (so now there is no way to uniquely test ID), it is perfectly logically consistent for an intelligent designer to not reuse parts. This is trying to play it both ways, and is scientifically useless.ConclusionMy opponent is supporting that ID is a scientific hypothesis - that it is testable and makes predictions that have been repeatedly observed and confirmed. My opponents has been unable to substantiate that statement with any scientific literature from any credible scientific journal, and given the complete lack of credible scientific support, I believe it is clearly obvious that ID does not fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory.[1] http://en.wikisource.org...