I already have:
"Let's see if ID is science. From a previous post:
'Is ID...:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?'
The Designer is not naturalistic; ID has already made that as a claim of their 'theory.' Since the Designer's not naturalistic, science can make no objective predictions of the Designer nor can science falsify the Designer. Thus, the Designer and the theory are neither falsifiable nor naturalistic. The falsifiable components, CSI and IC, have been meticulously falsified by TalkOrigins, Kenneth Miller, and many other biologists.
It's not tentative - ID assumed the conclusion, provided 'evidence' for it, and concluded the assumption.
It's not parsimonius; they have to invoke an intelligent Designer to explain the diversity of life when evolution is very successful at doing that already also. They have to explain how an Intelligent Designer would make 98.5% of our genome and many other organisms consists of ERVS, noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. They also have to complicate matters by explaining how chimps and humans have identical ERV insertions. All they can do is say, 'That's what the Designer wanted.'
It doesn't make accurate predictions; IC is falsified, CSI is falsified, and other than that, ID doesn't even attempt to make specific, risky predictions. It produces no research.
It's not encompassing. It doesn't explain identical ERV insertions, or chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 in humans, or why all the evidence points towards evolution. When relativity replaced newtonian physics, it had to account for why so many predictions of Newtonian physics were accurate. ID doesn't even attempt to do that.
And finally, it's not supported. The evidence they have? Negative, misinformed arguments against evolution mostly. The only postive arguments? CSI and IC, both of which have been falsified."
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease. (BTW, evolution does not meet this criteria. Any life form found today can be crammed into the imaginary tree, or lawn, of common descent.)
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
Inasmuch as science is subjective and does not attain to a full understanding of how things work there will always be modifications involving interpretive and expressive elements, just as the work of intelligent design itself is subject to change, sometimes even in mid course.
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
The word "natural" is not scientific, but arbitrary. Unless you can answer on what basis science determines what is natural and what is not, the word is scientifically meaningless. It certainly does not apply to intelligent design, since intelligent design is an observable phenomena and has been since the dawn of science itself.
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
It attributes the organization of matter performing specific functions to a most likely cause: intelligent design. Moreover, the inclination is to assume a single intelligent designer for the sake of simplicity.
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
Intelligent design predicts we will find organized matter performing specific functions, whether it extends to the fossil record or matter as yet unknown by science.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
Intelligent design recognizes the dynamic processes that take place as result of the implementation of a well-designed machine. As such, it expects to find change within a limited scope.
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?'
You can start by counting the number of characters in this post and how they combined in a way that conveys information from one party to another. Then consider how many such communications take place in such a manner in a single day on FR. Then consider the physical apparatus needed to make this happen, and whether this kind of organization can happen apart from intelligence, design, or a combination of the two.
----
Now that I have addressed the points you consider necessary for ID to be "scientific," has it occurred to you that science has not yet determined whether your requirements meet scientific criteria in the first place?