Basically, the topic for this debate would be as follows:

Resolved: That the modern movement of Intelligent Design did not arise in response to the 1987 supreme court ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard.

I would be defending the resolution. If anyone thinks this wording is bias or inadequate, I’m open to modifications, providing they are made in the spirit of good debate. I am equally open to whatever timing and rules my opponent would like to propose.

You're going to have to define what "modern movement" of ID is. It is Behe's model, or the various interpretations that allow for Evolution?

__________________
"You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

Basically, the idea that intelligent involvement in life can be inferred strictly on the basis of scientific evidence, as opposed to particular interpretations of scripture.

Well, that would seem pretty obvious under that definition that it did not arise because of a single court case.

Would you agree the idea, as defined, is different from creationism? Why or why not?

Subbie kindly agreed to have this debate with me over on the EvC forums. If anyone here is interested in spectating, you can find the debate thread at this link: EvC Forum: "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only)

Hmmm. I am following that debate (and I have been a member of EVC for a while now). It appears you probably should have flushed out what creationism means before you and subbie got into your debate.

It was my understanding that we both agreed that the term "creationist" has a lot of different meanings. What we are discussing is whether or not it is appropriate to apply the term to the intelligent design movement in the context of the debate over evolution.

To prove that A did not arise as a result of B, one must find C, the cause of A's arising.

In this case, I am primarily interested in showing that A was around before B, and, therefore, could not logically be the result of B. However, I do agree that it would be interesting to read an essay about the actual historical roots of intelligent design.

One can easily see the roots of "intelligent design" in the "ID" book that dover wanted to use. The drafts were from a book that used to be 'creation science', and they merely changed the words 'creation science' with 'intelligent design' in it.

__________________
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”
Owen Rowley

That was the subject of the debate. Feel free to comment. =)

Eh. The debate IMO would have been more useful if you had agreed to a definition of Creationism before starting.

That said, I do enjoy EVC, even though it can kind of dead there some times.

It's also the site that I've often asked people like arch and marc to go over to to see how well their arguments stand up to actual scientists. As of today, neither has attempted to defend their beliefs there.