"An honest scientist would pose this as a null hypothesis and begin attempting to falsify it."
It is already falsifiable. The test will be if scientists are be able to assemble simple (or even complex) life forms from nonliving matter in the lab. If however, any life forms are shown to spontaneously arise from nonliving matter (in a naturally occurring environment), it would falsify this hypothesis.
Both of these directions are already being explored and will be regardless of the ID debate.
If it is shown that simple life forms do self organize like the elements of the periodic table, then this ID hypothesis will be proved wrong.
There are really only a very limited number of possibilities for the origin of life. ID has the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
I see life as a trapdoor algorithm or encryption for which the key has been lost.
This does not imply the key is particularly complex or unlikely. It just means it can't be found in the message.
It could take quite a while to find an equivalent key, but then science has had problems that took centuries. Science does not look at difficult problems and give up.
I see life as a trapdoor algorithm or encryption for which the key has been lost.
This does not imply the key is particularly complex or unlikely. It just means it can't be found in the message.
It could take quite a while to find an equivalent key, but then science has had problems that took centuries. Science does not look at difficult problems and give up.