[Fester Chugabrew]

I have made no such inferences . . .

Yes you have, by default. As such your objections to ID are not scientific.

The starting axiom of science is that the fundamental properties of the universe do not change.

I reckon that shoots any notion of evolution square in the buns. Is this axiom subject to empirical proof? What makes it more scientific than the dearly beloved FSM?

Are you admitting that your claims are untestable?

No, I am not. I maintain that the presence of organized matter performing specific functions may reasonably be inferred as a product of intelligent design. My claims extend to organized matter, and to that extent they are testable. Further inferences and assumptions, like all inferences and assumptions, are not subject to empirical proof. That does not make them "unscientific."

[Dimensio]

Yes you have, by default.

No, I have not. I have made no assumptions regarding the cause of "organized matter performing specific functions", as I have no means by which to draw a conclusion on the matter.

As such your objections to ID are not scientific.

This is a non-sequitur.

I reckon that shoots any notion of evolution square in the buns.

Please explain this. No biologist thus far has found a contradiction between that fundamental axiom and the theory of evolution.

Is this axiom subject to empirical proof? What makes it more scientific than the dearly beloved FSM?

As I have said, it is an axiom. It is the starting assumption of science. All further observation and explanation follows from that axiom.

No, I am not.

Then please provide a test for your claims.

I maintain that the presence of organized matter performing specific functions may reasonably be inferred as a product of intelligent design.

How may this inference be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify this inference?

My claims extend to organized matter, and to that extent they are testable.

Then please provide a test.

Further inferences and assumptions, like all inferences and assumptions, are not subject to empirical proof. That does not make them "unscientific."

Scientific explanations are more than "inferences and assumptions". Claiming that an inference and/or an assumption is on par with a comprehensive scientific theory backed by years of research and evidence is not honest.