I understand that Darwinists like to use a watered down definition of evolution when it is convenient. The Darwinist version of evolution is that all life forms descended from a common ancestor through an unguided process. And that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms.
The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.
I could do the same thing... Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable. Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.
So how about using these for definitions:
From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
Or how about from Wikipedia:
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
Or from TalkOrigins.org:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
We'll choose those as all being essentially the same in scope and definition. So that's what evolution is. Agreed?
No fair for non-evolutionists to create the definition of evolution! For if that's the case, then non-IDers get to define exactly what Intelligent Design is.
The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.
What is the difference between your definition and the one that I used, "evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." How is it dishonest?
Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable.
I don't think that ID is disputed when it comes to cars, although there are some engineers who I am sure would disagree. Your analogy fails though because ID is based on the Theory of Evolution. The only quibble that ID has with the Theory of Evolution that it claims that a God designed life, not natural selection. ID agrees with every other aspect of evolution, even "that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms." ID simply states that the evolution was guided.
Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.
You are correct, ID is not falsifiable. It can't be disproved. The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are. It really is arguing over the definition of what is is.