Fester, don't you see how important this is? How can you test some idea, if the idea cannot fail any test? If an idea can't be tested, how can it be considered scientific? It would say nothnig about the way the world is - it couldn't predict anything.
An assertion just as "damning" is saying "that's how evolution did it."
The point is, there are possible observations that would say "evolution can't have done this". You've seen the list: the Precambrian rabbit, the mutations that are shared the wrong way among people, chimps and gorillas, and so on and on.
But there are no observations that would say "the designer couldn't have done this." ID is inherently untestabale.
Merry Christmas!
In this case it is not "the idea" that needs to be tested. We are given a physical universe to explain. If the universe inherently reveals organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, then we can happily attribute that to God and get on with the program. Or, we can happily assume God has nothing to do with it and get on with the program.
The point is, there are possible observations that would say "evolution can't have done this".
I disagree. Once one defines science as treating of an arbitraily defined realm, the evidence can be made to fit the definition. There is nothing in the known universe than cannot be attributed to a "natural" process of evolution. Does there happen to be a "quirk" in the record. Well, that's natural too, because "science only deals with what is natural."