As I've said many times, good science may take place when it adaopts and maintains the inductive given that God created the heavens and the earth in an orderly way. So science carries on expecting to find order as opposed to chaos. It may reasonably consider itself to be about the study of God's handiwork, as it were. That is how western science carried on until the "Enlightenment." That is how science may still be carried on today. Casting aside or disavowing this given does not make someone inherently more scientific or objective, because to cast away this given is a subjective decision made by the observer, not by the matter he observes.
In a less certain manner, one may note deductively, after seeing so many cases where organized matter behaves according to laws, that intelligent design is a viable possibility. For such a person, it is simply organized matter that serves as evidence for intelligent design, because intelligent design by its very nature entails taking a substance an forming it in such a way that it perfroms a purpose.
Maybe you are expecting me to produce more direct evidence that science is studying God's handiwork. If the presence of organized matter does not suit you as evidence, then what does? Is it necessary for God to write His name on each particle of matter before the evidence is "weighted" to your satisfaction? Is that what you would expect from someone who builds an artifact, that he would at all times be present and ready to directly announce his involvement in designing and organizing the implement?
Your expectations of ID are unreasonable even for science, and they go beyond what you expect of evolutionist theories. Your bias is plain to see.
Again, you provide no DETAILS as to how God is to be investigated scientifically. YOU HAVE NO IDEA how it could be done, just a wish it could be.
" Faith, like scientific propositions, must be capable of testing, or it is not faith."
Now you are changing the meaning of what I said. I said that faith is faith because you can't test your claim. Faith is BY DEFINITION a belief where evidence is lacking. I was not talking about someone else testing a person's faith, but the person with faith not needing evidence to believe what they believe. The idea that someone needs to test their claims before having faith in them is idiotic, and is what you said.
Now, it is clear you know of no way to scientifically study God. You were asked to put up, and you couldn't. And anybody who thinks that faith starts out with testable assumptions is not capable of having an intelligent debate on the matter.
Good day.