"or are currently untestable. "
Who said something has to be currently testable to be a hypotesis"
"ID claims to be a biological theory. It should be able to make testable predictions in that discipline."
And you should be able to come up with a testable prediction that would disprove ID as well.
"Second, responding to a simple legitimate question with personal insults is not a very good argument for your position."
I said doltish, not dolt. I just think you ought to be able to provide a test of ID on your own terms. I provided some questions not easily answered within about two minutes. Shouldn't you be able to do much better?
The question was 'And what predictions does ID make?'
You proffered two 'hypothetical' tests.
Hypothesis 1: Scientific Atheists will tend to support abominations such as abortion on demand, genocide (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, probably Hitler)
This is not an ID based hypothesis. ID claims to be a biological scientific theory. So this does not qualify as a testable ID hypothesis/prediction.
Hypothesis 2: Evolutionary processes will have consistent attractors universallyt. For example, you might expect human-like creatures on other planets with developed morality, versus slime molds.
This is not part of any ID 'theory'. And not testable.
And you should be able to come up with a testable prediction that would disprove ID as well...I just think you ought to be able to provide a test of ID on your own terms.
In science, the burden of providing testable predictions is on those submitting and advocating the theory. By your logic, I could in turn say my theory is that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you must come up with a testable prediction that would disprove it.
If you want to continue this discussion, provide a testable prediction for ID. Otherwise, forget it.