"Take any fact you want. If it is not falsifiable, does that make it "unscientific?"
We are talking theories, not facts. You don't seem to know the difference.
So I repeat,
What possible use is a *theory* that no conceivable evidence can go against?
You and your ilk would like to make "falsifiability" the test of ID, as if ID must be falsifiable to be scientific. I am saying that is not true. It is possible for statements and pursuits to be scientific without being falsifiable. I know it's a hard pill to swallow. Deal with it.
I am also saying that, just because God is not currently subject to direct observation does not mean all mention or use of such a paradigm must be ruled as unscientific. Another bitter pill to swallow. Your mind may not be capable of that kind of expansion, but deal with that too.