Evolution is a legit scientific theory, whereas Intelligent Design is not

First, I want to give some background to explain the approach I will take here: We have been having a general evolution vs intelligent design debate on the forums, and Jon wanted to have a more formal debate. He proposed the narrow focus of arguing that evolution is valid science in ways that ID is not. I first declined, much preferring to debate whether life actually evolved, rather than whether such a claim is science or not. However, I did take the challenge, with it's narrow definition, and I think I should hold Jon to his subject and definitions. I'm not doing this just for the sport of debate, but because I think this is typical of the whole evolution approach: Evolutionists want to keep the wizard with his impossible powers safely behind a curtain of technical sounding jargon. They don't really want to deal with the stark essence of their claim: That life 'just happened', alone and unguided. So then, Jon's challenge is two-fold: To show that evolution is 'a legit science theory' while also showing that Intelligent Design is not. We must begin with the definitions that Jon has provided. As a framework for what might be considered 'legit science theory' I would like to reference a well known lecture by the late physicist Richard Feynman, whose science pedigree is undisputed (1). This lecture is both entertaining and informative, and agrees with Jon's definition of 'Scientific Theory', but also expands on it in useful ways. Feynman notes that a new theory begins with a guess. Based upon observations someone makes a guess as to how things may work. We then make predictions based on this guess, and then find ways to test the accuracy of these predictions. Let's note right off that the purpose of these predictions is not to be useful, as Jon suggests. The purpose of these predictions is to provide a way to test the original guess (the 'hypothesis'). And in fact, we actually want to find predictions that can be proven wrong. As Feynman notes, scientific theory can never be proven right, it can only be proven wrong. So we try to find predictions which might fail, so we don't waste time on a bad guess. Let's take a nonsense scientific guess to illustrate: Let's guess that some of Despicable Me's minions (2) pull the sun around the earth every day, taking 24 hours to do so. Note that this is a fully useful bit of pseudo-science - you can predict sunrise tomorrow with good accuracy. So the hypothesis is useful and makes good predictions, yet is terribly wrong. But how do we know it's wrong? We must try to make predictions that we could falsify. So, for instance, if the minions are pulling the sun, they must be able to withstand the extreme temperatures that would entail. As it would be cruel to actually test this on a minion, let's all agree that this simple thought experiment shows our guess to be false. But what if we actually saw minions through a telescope? This brings us to another requirement Feynman gives for a 'legit science theory': The hypothesis must not be too general, or too vague. If we saw minions pulling the sun, that would be an observation, not a hypothesis. So, similarly, Jon's definition of evolution as "the gradual change of a system" is too vague and general to be of any use as a hypothesis. His definition of 'Biological Evolution' isn't much better: "the gradual change of organisms through genetic variation". Again, this is just an observation - we all know children look a little different than their parents and grandchildren are more different. We all know that various breeds of dog have been derived through genetic variation. So such a definition cannot qualify as a hypothesis, as one of Feynman's 'new laws'. It's just an observation of what happens. So let me make my own corrollary of Feynman's "too vague" requirement: You cannot use the observations you base your hypothesis on as the predictions to be tested. That's obviously circular reasoning. Note that in the case of my Minions theory, the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow is really based on my observation that the sun appears to circle the earth at about 1/86400 Hz. You could substitute anything for 'minions pull the sun' and make the same predictions. And note that this applies to the serious science of Ptolemy's day as well as my nonsense example. So we have to be careful to find ways to test the unique aspect of any new law and not just restate observations. In the nonsense case, we must find a way to test for minions, not solar frequency. So, I'm jumping ahead here since Jon has not yet defined evolution as a scientifically viable hypothesis, but note that the observations that evolution is based on cannot be the testable predictions of evolution. Fossils cannot be the predictions evolution makes, the theory is based on fossil evidence. The species of birds on islands cannot be the testable predictions of evolution, Darwin based his seminal work on observations of birds in the Galapagos Islands. Such 'predictions' are really just extrapolations from the foundational observations. I think that the legitimate value of evolution is as an organizational tool that helps scientists catalog their vast knowlege about the ecosystem. Such predictions as evolution makes are extrapolations from observed knowledge, not the result of a scientific theory. The unique essence of Darwin's claims have not be demonstrated. However, Jon didn't define evolution as having anything to do with Darwin's hypothesis anyway, so this is irrelevant. He simply defined evolution as gradual change, and I've noted that is merely the observation that we live in a dynamic universe, hardly a basis for a 'new law'. So I suppose the debate is over as Jon as not demonstrated that 'evolution is a legit scientific theory' (it's not even a legit hypothesis), but I'm a nice guy, I'm going to give him the opportunity to try to provide a better definition for evolution in a new round. (1) http://www.youtube.com... (2) http://www.imdb.com...