Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable. You cannot test if an object had a deity help design it, nor can you observe it. Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate. The first discussion on there is someone equivocating on the word 'theory' by mixing common usage of the word with a specific usage of the word. Every peer reviewed reputable source denounces ID and creationism as science and note that proponents for ID and creationism misrepresent sciences.For instance from the National Academies of Science.http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066  "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."The American Association for the Advancement of Science.http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.The American Society of Agronomyhttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/asoa-sss081505.php  "Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter."I can literally flood this page with peer reviewed sources and scientific communities, from national and international sources, that discredit ID or creationism but I think it will be fruitless for reasons I will touch on later in this rebuttal. But back to your link.  if a natural object was designed,Right here, this is an assumption not based on observation that is testable. It is also starting at a conclusion then it goes on to claim that the evidence supports it. it will contain high levels of CSI.Everything contains specific information, the premise predicts the conclusion...circular reasoning. Everything having specific information leads to everything having specific information, not being designed that is non sequitur. Also if everything is designed then saying one is special is flawed as it is like saying the Mona Lisa is the most beautiful painting because it is painted. But we don't need to go there because the term 'high levels of information' is hugely subjective and non scientific. What is 'high' levels to one species may not be to another.One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to functionIrreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time. Irreducible complexity has been shown by sciences to fail even when using using very complex ideas such as blood clotting, the eye and flagellum. When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a famous one, here are the findings from that case."We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.Again, Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance....In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. More holes in ID. To hold its position it fails to address components of evolution.Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance. As I stated before, get your scientific research from science sources and get your religious research from religious sources. Actual scientists, biologists and anthropologists seem to debunk ID pretty easily because of the holes in ID. Making claims out of someones specialty is a major mistake.Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not?I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories. I was speaking about your claim of 'being designed because it was beneficial' not being equal to the idea of evolution as things 'were left because of the benefits that arose'. The statements have different meanings.If you are speaking on your link to the poll, make a venn diagram of the words and there you can map out the differences yourself. You seem to say the statements are equal just as you did in the above examples. though so I doubt you will arrive at a similar conclusion as I did. You do not seem to value language. Not only is one term more inclusive I had questioned the nature of the claim as being ad populum and too vague a group for an appeal to authority. You seem to avoid any of my points.I can say the same thingExcept for that I outlined exactly where I disagree with you and you have yet to basically even note I am writing anything at all. I had to 'mull' over your position to refute it. So sure you can make that claim, but it doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine.You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread. And like in those other claims you failed to address a single point your opponents made, you just assert that their claims do not work. Your opponents give great reason to disagree with you, you do not do so in turn. Your debate 'style' seems to hurt your credibility when making such claims.I am of the mind that no evidence that disagrees with your position is sufficient for you.I am not trying to 'prove' you wrong. I was attempting to clear up misconceptions about evolution that you were making. I see that is futile now. As I said I am ok with folks believing what they want, I just feel if someone has a belief though they should hold that belief on good information. Misrepresenting or ignoring claims in things like evolution is not good information to base a belief on. It is up to each person to inform themselves though, you can lead a horse to water and all.You can continue if you want, but I am backing out. I prefer an exchange to be mutual, ignoring flaws in an argument does not make it a strong argument. Science is open to scrutiny and welcomes questions, not so much with ID or creationism as it actively avoids things I and others have already pointed out.