The introductory paragraph turned in, I can now focus on the body and following pages of the essay and the search that must go in them. My focus will definitely be on the science (or lack thereof) that’s in Intelligent Design, but I’m also thinking that I really need to define what science really is. That is to say, how science has defined itself as in the past centuries. Trial and error has worked, and science has perfected itself to a state where any question could be answered. Not many people know about the scientific process that has evolved in the past few centuries, and I believe that is one of the problems that people face when they consider Intelligent Design a scientific opponent to the Darwinian Evolution.
The best place for people to grasp the concept of scientific method is in the first paragraph following the introduction. The sooner that people realize what science really is, the sooner they can apply it to the reasoning in scientific theories as they stand.
The first heading is going to be broad, then. “What science really is” Not what it isn’t, just what it is, how it developed over the centuries. And most importantly, why it works as well as it does, why it brings up this conclusion, and not this one. So the paragraphs within that subheading will be the grassroots of what science –really- is.
The second idea is going to be the introduction of Intelligent Design. A brief history of ID, and the basic ideas around it that proclaim to be scientific will also be discussed.
Subheading three will consist of the arguments most compelling for design, and then the arguments that will effectively refute them.
Subheading four will discuss very briefly the theories of how species originated, and also the Big Bang theory, both are theories that Intelligent Design claims to challenge.
Subheading five will go on to discuss what the point of ID really is, if it is indeed not real science. This will include the forefront of the movement (the schools) as well as the people who are leading this front (Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski etc.) and why they are not really pushing for science, but for an ideology that is along the lines of science that has been refuted throughout the past 5 centuries. The goal for ID is to reform completely the idea of science, and how it is taught to the sponge-like minds of children in school.
The conclusion will obviously tie all of these together. First, Science is this, Intelligent Design defies this, Intelligent Design does this intentionally, Intelligent Design misleads because, and this will eventually lead to social corruption.
This is my basic outline in non-outline form. Just a brain storm in other words. Tell me what you think.