[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That pretty much sums up arguments against intelligent design. "It's not scientific." It's not scientific because science has a definition and rules. One of those rules is your theory has to be testable. It has to be able to make predictions. There HAS to be some hypothetical fact or discovery that could undermine your theory, or else it is a tautology. Most importantly, it has to posit only natural, regular causes, not supernatural whims. You want to redefine science to mean everything and anything, which in practice means that science will be NOTHING.

You can't even provide us a definition of design, how the hell do you expect anybody to take you seriously? You think that logical fallacies are compatible with science. You think that your feelings don't need to be tested. You are a mystic. Why don't you jut admit that and stop trying to pretend you are being scientific? And now, for the umpteenth time, what is design? What is science?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Intelligent design is not a theory. It is the foundation of all science. You have not offered, and cannot offer, any alternative.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I've used terminology related to design and how it applies in this case. It escapes you, most likely out of willful ignorance.

Design entails the arrangement of matter in such a way as to be organized and purposeful. Atoms do not fly apart because they are designed to retain their respective pattern of form and behavior. If design is not responsible for atoms retaining their form, then what, scientifically speaking, is?