[edsheppa]

Deductions and testable claims are only one aspect of things.

It may be only one aspect, but it is a necessary one. We are discussing (I think) whether ID is a scientific theory and one criterion is that the theory make testable predictions. It is up to those claiming ID is scientific to produce such a prediction. I guess you will join the long line of ID-is-scientific posters to fail the challenge.

And no, contrary to your hyperbole, it is not a matter of law but of convention.

As an aside, it's not clear there are any other necessary criteria for a theory to be scientific.

[cornelis]

You can define anything any which way you like. If you assume the only thing knowable is math, bingo: all that is real is mathematical, the rest is non-existent or irrelevant. As Belloc wrote, The mere lack of evidence is used for the purposes of confident negation! This is no longer analysis. Not only is it unscientific, it is absurd.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Intelligent design theory predicts that organized matter will be found to behave according to predictable laws. It is the essence of an intelligent designer to take matter and arrange it in such as way as to perform either a particular function or many functions. Lo and behold, as science investigates the universe, it discovers particular tools that are not only able to get the job done, but are also doing the job.

Intelligent design theory is best falsified by the presence of disorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws. So far that evidence has been minimal in forthcoming, so it is hardly unreasonable, or unscientific, to approach science, and conduct science, according to the theory of intelligent design.