I sometimes wonder if you are just a bot like Eliza, programmed to take statements and turn them around.
To have a theory or hypothesis, you have to predict something that is different or unexpected by the prevailing theories.
This is apparentyly why the bacterial flagellum was chosen as the poster child for irreducible complexity. Unfortunately it isn't irreducible.
Is there anything at all that would make or break the ID hypothesis?
Could you elaborate on that?
(joke, kidding...)
To have a theory or hypothesis, you have to predict something that is different or unexpected by the prevailing theories.
How about just plain unaccountable for by prevailing theories? There's a difference there, because any proponent of a theory looking at a result can always say, "Oh yeah, my theory predicts that." The question is whether that claim is actually true. ID proponents claim that there are features of living organisms that can't be accounted for by Darwinism. I'm not here to defend that claim, but merely to establish that it's a scientifically resolvable question.