[unlearner]

"The real problem with ID is there is no there there. No research, no suggestions for research. If you are going to be science, you have to be in the field testing a hypothesis. ID has no hypothesis. Just a list of unexplained things. You aren't doing science by pointing out that some things are unexplained. You do science by seeking explanations."

Not all scientists do field testing. Einstein developed much of his theoretical physics without it and in some cases where tests were not even yet possible.

ID contains a significant hypothesis for the origin of life. Here is the scientific statement: "The complexity and interdependence of life, even in its simplest forms, indicates formation from nonliving things from nonliving matter cannot occur apart from intelligent intervention."

This is a scientific hypothesis which can be tested, falsified and has no rival. Evolution is about the origin of species, not life. Abiogenesis has no scientific hypothesis.

[js1138]

"The complexity and interdependence of life, even in its simplest forms, indicates formation from nonliving things from nonliving matter cannot occur apart from intelligent intervention."

An honest scientist would pose this as a null hypothesis and begin attempting to falsify it. Which is what molecular biologists are doing when they study the various abiogenesis hypotheses that don't exist.

There are many problems in science that cannot be solved in an afternoon. How many years passed between Copernicus and Newton, or between Newton and Einstein? How long did it take to build a coherent table of chemical elements? Do we have one now?