[Gumlegs]

Good list of questions, although I'm going to nitpick number two, How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?

It looks like a demand to prove a negative.

For me, the best question is number four, which any theory calling itself "scientific" must be capable of answering.

Also, there's the matter of fruitfulness: What other avenues of research does ID suggest? What can we expect to find through ID?

[general_re]

It looks like a demand to prove a negative.

Perhaps, but then again, that's the claim they're making, that some things are too complex to have arisen naturally. They've effectively taken the task of proving a negative upon themselves, and I'm personally quite willing to let them chase that particular butterfly.

[js1138]

Also, there's the matter of fruitfulness: What other avenues of research does ID suggest? What can we expect to find through ID?

"Fruitfulness" is at the very heart of the controversy. Science asks only two things of any hypothesis: it must not contradict established evidence, and it must suggest research to confirm it, or to resolve differences with existing theories. ID is a barren hypothesis. There is no possible evidence that could contradict it.