OK, then what about ID is falsifiable (testable), and what facts are available to build the hypothesis. Macro-evolutionists can point to at least micro-evolution and make a guess that it may - in fact - work at higher levels. And given the amount of common DNA we can trace, it may be that there are relations between species.
So what facts are there for ID? Seriously, I want to know.
It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.
Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny flagellar motor needs all of its parts to function—is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function.
Notice that Behe’s argument, contra the assertions of Judge Jones and the ACLU’s expert witnesses, rests not on ignorance or on a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.
Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s means of detecting such design would have been falsified.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html
“Macro-evolutionists can point to at least micro-evolution and make a guess that it may - in fact - work at higher levels”
That is true.
But the extrapolation you describe from micro to macro can only be the subject of conjecture, not outright science observed under controlled conditions.
That’s why the actual Theory of Evolution can never be validated. Observing it in real time takes too long so no one can ever say with certainty that Evolution has been tested.