[ralice]

The theory is based on the testable assumption that structures that exhibit high information content are more likely to be the result of intelligent design than of undirected natural causes.

If the assumptions are testable, then there should be data, analysis and peer-reviewed publication. When that happens (and none of it is happening now), then it can qualify as science. Otherwise it is just commentary.

[Buggman]

It did happen, and instead of simply writing counter-articles, the evo-inquisition pitched a hissy fit and ruined Richard Sternberg's career for his daring to allow a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer supporting ID to appear in the pages of the Smithsonian, never mind that it passed all the standard hurdles for publication.

One almost has to admire that level of chutzpah in hypocrisy: Demand that IDers publish peer-review articles, then ruin the careers of those who publish them, thus guarunteeing that no such articles will ever be published.

The day that happened, the evos forever surrendered their scientific "high ground" and put themselves in the position of ardent religionists defending a dogma.

Congratulations.