[Sola Veritas]

"ID presupposes that certain biological structures could not have evolved. In science this is called a null hypothesis, and the obvious response is to conduct research towards falsifying that hypothesis."

And atheistic evolutionists presuppose their is no God or supernatural created force. Seems both sides makes assumptions. BTW - ID doesn't "assume" anything. It quite logically (and by probability) concludes that some things could not happen by chance - their is a "design" to life that could indicate intelligence behind it. This is not creationism per se.

[js1138]

It quite logically (and by probability) concludes that some things could not happen by chance ...

Chance has little to do with it. The processes assumed by evolution are regular, consistent and lawful. Every process assumed by evolution has been observed. Obviously the entire history of life has not been observed, nor is there any explanation of its beginning. Nor is there any foreseeable point at which every question will be answered.

Speaking of regular processes, perhaps you'd like to tackle a few questions from the perspective of ID.

1. Does the process of selection occur?
2. Do changes to the genome occur, includation copy errors, insertions, variations in chromosome count?
3. How many changes are required to produce an easily observable difference in body structure (for example, number of legs)?
4. What exactly is a species?
5. What mechanism prevents a series of changes from becoming a new species?

[Dimensio]

And atheistic evolutionists presuppose their is no God or supernatural created force.

And theistic evolutionists typically believe that a God or supernatural force is behind the process of evolution.

You might have more credibility if you'd stop tossing in the red herring of atheism vs. theism.