[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?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

<Sigh> You talk as if evolution and ID were polar opposites. They aren't - necessarily. All ID postulates is that the Universe is a result of Intelligent Design. It does not say that evolution could not exist. In fact, most evolutionists will be the first to state that evolution does not happen by chance - which is a good argument for ID.

However, if you don't believe in ID, but do believe in evolution, try falsifying it. IOW, tell me what happens when you remove the design element from your experiments.