Hey don't insult watchmakers.:)
Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. "ID" obviously has validity, in the most literal sense: "Intelligent design" (as for example by humans) obviously does work and can produce results, such as watches, cars, etc.
What I was talking about was not "ID" the process, but the "ID postulate" (or "the ID movement" if you prefer) which asserts that some Intelligence and/or Design was responsible for the formation of life on Earth. *That* postulate (it doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis", much less "theory") has been knocking around for several thousand years without visible results.
To me there is plenty of evidence, but most of that can't be "proven" in a scientific sense or in a way that would be received by the scientific community.
But therein lies the problem. And it's more profound than ID's supporters realize.
Some think that the "requirements of science" are some sort of "club" that erects artificial restrictions to keep out the "unwanted" viewpoints. But that's not the case.
Instead, the scientific method has been developed over the centuries to incorporate reliable methods of acquiring valid knowledge, and avoid unreliable methods.
And the reason that "testable" and "falsifiable" are such large parts of that method is because they get to the core essense of telling sense from nonsense. Or even more to the point, useful knowledge from useless notions.
And that's the crux of the issue. If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences. It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways. It is, in every sense of the word, a useless idea. An idea which has no practical value, which makes no difference, which produces no results. In short, it's an idea that doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not.
Of course, I was putting out another dumb one-liner as I am wont to do many times.
And here, exactly, is where the argument begins and ends.
A theory T and some amount of works associates a probability P with using T in some translation of the experimental settings with which P was associated with T.
(using the Universe U as a random variable, which it is not, of course.)
The is the only way to state reliability in any quasi-formal or better manner.
What is EVO other than proving that the Universe is stingy? duh. How many more settings (future/past) can it be reliable in? How can we reliably test EVO this instant?
What if the Universe has a heavy-tail distribution with regards to many of the large scale complex systems within which most of the metrics of Life live?
Here are some of the avenues of investigation that ID scientists want to follow:
1. transcendent creation event where all matter, energy, spacetime began (Big Bang)
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. rapid recovery from mass extinctions (mainly through appearance of new species)
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
19. molecular clock rates (which show humanity's recent origin)
I find it perfectly reasonable that they should be able to follow whatever lines of inquiry shows promise. Anybody disagree?