[Diamond]

ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.

Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?

One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. Michael Behe

Cordially,

[spunkets]

Re: ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory. "Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?

See #175. The scientific arguments are aimed at Behe's model, which is rubbish. In fact Behe's model shows only that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, nothing more. A third grader could do the same. The only difference is in the skill expended in the art of the con.

After Behe does a considerable amount of handwaiving, he then makes 2 concluitons:
1. That some unknown, nonphysical abitrary force exists.
2. That this arbitrary force is intelligent.

[Dimensio]

Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?

Well I've never seen any argument that actually has a chance. I've seen a few attempts, but they're all flawed in that they assume a specific Designer with specific goals, but I know that ID never lets itself get specific enough to address such topics, so any criticisms, even if valid, can be waved away with "the Designer didn't want to do things that way".

ID can't be falsified. That's why it isn't science.

[Antonello]

>ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.

Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?

The arguments are not trying to falsify ID. They are trying to point out that ID has no scientific basis by which it can be falsified. To claim that the very act of criticizing ID is proof that it is scientifically valid is quite absurd.

[stremba]

That's because ID postulates two separate claims, one of which is not falsifiable and one of which is. It claims that there are biological structures that could not have evolved, and that is falsifiable. It also claims that there was an intelligent being that designed life. That is the claim that is not falsifiable.