I also gave that example as just that, an example. There are many other statements that you could use for X when talking about evolution. I also mean the specific theory of evolution that is the current scientific paradigm. I am not saying that a falsification of that theory would lead to another theory that's more to the liking of creationists/ID'ers. A falsification of the current theory of evolution might lead to a new theory that's similar in many ways to the old one. For example, the current theory states that birds and mammals evolved independently from ancestors that were reptiles. Therefore, a statement of the form previously given with X = an organism with both mammal-like and bird-like features would constitute a falsification of the current theory of evolution. If such a falsification were actually found it would lead to a new theory, but it would be a new theory that kept the basics of the current theory with a modified evolutionary tree. This still constitutes a falsification of evolution. If ID'ers were to specify limitations on the capabilities of the designer, such falsifications would be possible for ID as well. That is, if you specified that a designer would not design an eye with a blind spot, that statement would be scientific. It would also be false, since human eyes have a blind spot. It could reasonably be replaced by another ID theory that specifies some other observations that would be impossible.
see post 231.