I don't recall stating a hypothesis. I do see credible evidence for a designer. I cannot deny that matter demonstrates design and order in a manner and degree that causes me to infer a designer is involved with it. It is hardly unreasonable or unscientific to make such an inference. And inferences, just like falsifiable declarations, are part of science.
It is not the burden of ID to prove itself "scientific." It is the burden of evolutionists to prove why science must, by definition, operate disctinctly from anything ID might entail. They haven't even come close. They're too busy casting aspertions upon the motives of those who merely state the obvious: the evidence of intelligent design is more voluminous than the evidence for its opposite.
"I think little gnomes created the different species. I see evidence all around me that they did it. It's up to the Evolutionists to prove why science has to reject the Gnome Theory."
Wrong. If you propose your theory as a scientific alternative to other theories, you *have* to have some form of evidence to support it, and a credible explanation why it's superior to existing theories. Evolutionary Biologists don't have to do Jack S**T about ID unless the ID advocates meet the above criteria. That's how science has worked for the last few hundred years, and it's worked very well.
It is if its proponents want it taught in science classes.
It most certainly *is*, if they want to elbow their way into science classrooms and have it presented there.
the evidence of intelligent design is more voluminous than the evidence for its opposite.
Complete horse manure. You haven't a clue what actually constitutes evidence for a hypothesis. It's not just whatever you feel like looking at which makes you think maybe your hypothesis might explain it, which is clearly how you're using the term.
You have to actually be able to *test* your hypothesis against the evidence for the evidence to actually be supportive of your hypothesis. To date, "ID" has utterly failed to do that. Meanwhile, evolution has been tested against the evidence litterally *millions* of times and passed with flying colors.
There is a vast, *enormous* body of evidence and research -- along multiply independent cross-confirming lines -- supporting evolution. There is none whatsoever supporting the "ID postulate".