[r9etb]

You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

[Ichneumon]

[You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.]

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

I have dealt with the specifics of "ID" many, many times. Don't pretend I haven't. I have earned the right to generalize about my findings.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

Incorrect. What the IDers are left with after their few falsifiable claims have been thrown out (because they *have* been falsified) is indeed unfalsifiable.

There's no contradiction here. "ID" is a mish-mash of claims that have been proven false, *and* claims which are unfalsifiable. When we speak of ID being unfalsifiable, we're speaking of the latter, because that's what the ID folks are almost exclusively pushing these days.