So humans caused the first single celled creatures to evolve into eukaryotes, and then into multicellular creatures? If not, then give me a way to test and see if some other intelligent designer did so. We are talking about different things. Certainly humans have interfered with the development of species for the past 30000 years or so. As far as I know, this is not what ID claims, however, nor is it particularly controversial. ID typically claims that some pre-human intelligence has interfered with the development of species at some point during the past billion or so years. What observation would falsify this claim (which we don't know for sure happened)? This is the claim that I am maintaining is not scientific. Not all true claims and ideas are scientific, BTW.
Suppose that a human were to create such a creature -- would that answer your question? My guess is that, before too long, humans will be capable of such a thing -- if not with organic creatures, then with some other medium (say, an electronic "life").
Still, let us turn your question around: can you propose a test whereby a pool of likely-seeming chemicals spontaneously assembles itself into a living organism? Folks have been trying, and failing, to do this for decades -- at what point should I conclude that their theory is false?
We are talking about different things. Certainly humans have interfered with the development of species for the past 30000 years or so. As far as I know, this is not what ID claims, however, nor is it particularly controversial.
And yet it is factual proof of the efficacy of ID as a theory. To dismiss ID as a "creationist fantasy" (as some on this thread have done) is to dismiss the hard facts showing that it is a viable explanation for some of what we see.
ID typically claims that some pre-human intelligence has interfered with the development of species at some point during the past billion or so years.
I would substitute "non-human," but I'll grant the definition.
What observation would falsify this claim (which we don't know for sure happened)? This is the claim that I am maintaining is not scientific.
By the same token, what observation would falsify the claim that all life on Earth developed as it did due to random mutation? Simple: human-guided selective breeding, and human genetic engineering explain some of what we see (including major characteristics for most of the living things with which we typically surround ourselves).
Not all true claims and ideas are scientific, BTW
True. What I'm getting at is that the "scientific" position being espoused by some on this thread, isn't scientific at all; rather, it's a set of strongly-held beliefs that must be defended against "religious fanatics."