Replies

Quite simple. ID hypothesizes that an irreducibly complex organ is not replicable through a random process of natural selection. Create such an organ in an organism which did not previously possess it in a lab through a randomized process and voila! You have tested ID and found that it can be falsified.

As Kenneth Miller points out, ID advocates make two seperate claims, one of which is falsifiable, and the other of which isn't:

1) Irreducibly complex biochemical systems cannot have evolved through Darwinian mechanism. This claim is falsifiable, and indeed has been falsified. I'll get back to that.

2) Irreducibly complex biochemical systems were directly designed by an intelligent agent. This claim is not falsifiable.

ID is not science because it makes non-falsifiable claim #2 and the falsifiable claim it has made have been falsified, yet its advocates deny it.

How has #1 been falsified? Well, as Miller points out in his book, the biochemical system certain bacteria use to metabolize lactose is irreducibly complex. Scientists deleted the gene that produces the proteins in the process. Then they subjected the bacteria to selection pressure for lactose metabolisis, and low and behold, after several generations, the bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex biochemical process to metabolize lactose.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

In your initial post, you demanded that scientists evolve a new, irreducibly complex organ in the lab. Well, that's demanding the impossible, for whole organs take thousands of years to evolve. However, we can observe how an irreducibly complex organ, the mammalian ear, evolved in history.

The mammalian ear has three bones, each of which it needs to work. Yet it evolved from the reptilian ear, which has only one bone. Paleantologists have a step-by-step sequence of how it evolved, by appropriating parts from the Reptilian jaw. Falsification #2.