[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Depends on your definition of 'scientific'. The original meaning more or less meant to search for truth (a rough explanation, to be sure, but valid nonetheless). Nowadays a highly formalized series of methodologies are used to test theories empirically.

But your 'falsifiability' premise cuts both ways. There is no evolution experiment which can be separated from ID. There is no way that you can falsify the concept that evolution is non-ID in origin.

[Condorman]

There is no evolution experiment which can be separated from ID. There is no way that you can falsify the concept that evolution is non-ID in origin.

If ID is so non-specific that it's predictions are indistinguishable from those of the Theory of Evolution, why do you believe it necessary to ADD ambiguity to the equation in the form of that nebulous, undefined "Designer" character intrinsic to ID?

But of course, that question only applies if your conclusion is correct. In actuality, there are whole classes of observations--mammalian fossils predating trilobytes, or specific combinations of traits on a single animal--that the Theory of Evolution specifically states should never be. It is this predictive power that gives the ToE a leg up on ID. What would ID have to say on the discovery (living, dead, or fossilized) of a feathered salamander?