[js1138]

Yet Darwinism itself rests on a premise that is itself untestable in exactly the same way that ID does.

Not even remotely true. Darwinism is open to falsification on any number of points:

1. Age of the earth: Darwin assumed many millions of years, but radioactivity was not yet discovered, and the age was not only unknown, but contemporary understanding of thermodynamics argued against more than a few million years.
2. Ultimate source of variation: genetics was unknown, as was DNA. Is variation simply sexual shuffeling of a fixed deck, or do mutations occur? Darwin assumed mutations, but he had no clue as to the mechanism.
3. Fossil evidence: It is always possible to find a chimera, something that does not fit into the established tree of life. This would severely test evolution. Instead, we continue to find intermediate fossils, including feathered dinosaurs.

Now do a thought experiment. Take yourself back to 1860 and assume the role of an ID proponent. What would you assert as the age of the earth and why. Would you believe in mutation or not, and why? Would you expect to find a sorted array of hominid fossils or not, and why?

Theorizing is not science unless falsifiable statements are made.

[betty boop]

Now do a thought experiment. Take yourself back to 1860 and assume the role of an ID proponent. What would you assert as the age of the earth and why. Would you believe in mutation or not, and why? Would you expect to find a sorted array of hominid fossils or not, and why?

OK, I'll do your thought experiment js1138. It won't be "rigorous" in the experimental sense, for I'm not a scientist. But I'll answer your questions: :^)

1. I wouldn't have a clue about the age of the earth. Physics hadn't weighed in on that question at the time. But if I bothered to think about this question at all, I probably would focus on the idea that nothing can have an "age" unless it had a beginning in time.

2. I would believe in mutation, for I had seen mules. I think I would also recognize that there is something different about a mule that is not the same as the result I get from selective breeding of my horses and dogs for charactistics I like.

3. If I found any fossils at all, there would be no way for me to tell whether they were hominids or not. I'm not even sure I would recognize them as "fossils," but maybe as just some indescrimate but long dead animal in my field. Since more than likely I wouldn't be looking for fossils in the first place, the idea of a "sorted array" would be meaningless to me. Anyhoot, I don't think there was any such concept as "hominid" before Darwin; but I could be wrong about that.

So where does that get us, js???