“The problem with the ID people is that they have yet to set forth a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data to test it, analyze the data and publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. IOW, they talk (almost nonstop) but they don’t deliver what is expected of people who want to be taken seriously as scientists. Until they do, they are going to remain a fringe element.”
I can *always* count on seeing the same old crap being regurgitated again and again.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you consider the study of abiogenesis (the origin of the first living cell) to be “scientific”? If so, please explain to me how one can disprove or “falsify” the notion that the first living cell fell into place at random.
That would be like “disproving” the idea that the Gettysburg address once spontaneously appeared on the sands of the Sahara desert by random chance.
What a bizarre question. Abiogenesis can be studied scientifically, per the scientific method. It can also be approached unscientifically, and has been.
I sense you have a variable definition of proof. If the outcome is not consistent with what you desire, it is not proof. If it is consistent, it is. I have run into people who approach science this way for decades, so it is nothing new to me.
I don't doubt that you can "prove" anything you want and deny that there is even so much as evidence for anything you don't want to believe. To describe the way that biologists approach their research as the "same old crap" gives you away as an ideologue who has no interest in advancing science.