The irony here is that it is the exact opposite of ID theory that may be unfalsifiable. Short of a direct proclamation by God himself, what would it take to "disprove" purely naturalistic evolution (with no intelligent design)? No matter how much evidence Behe, Dembski, and others provide, it isn't enough to shake the faith of the evolutionists.
What it boils down to is that evolutionists will believe their theory of unintelligent origins until ID is absolutely proven. That is not how science is supposed to work. If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?
Scientific explainations have to put their asses on the line and risk being destroyed. If they can't do that then they are not science. That is the main reason why scientific explainations must be potentially falsifiable.
For example the explaination that every one million years all the animals on Earth get up and do a dance would be falsified if we don't see that happen in the next one million years. But that is playing safe. The explaination is not on the firing line.
Your example of bacteria to vertebrate evolving in the lab being a falsification of ID is equally playing safe.
Contrast that with one of many criteria for falsifing evolution: Finding a modern mammal fossil in cambrian strata. This puts evolution directly on the firing line. Such an example could be found at any day. ID has nothing like this.
Also notice that evolution's tests reflect it's own explainatory power. In this case it is based on the history of modern mammals as explained by evolution.
On the otherhand the tests you have come up with for ID so far have been based on evolution. So does ID have any explainatory power of it's own? or is it actually just a collection of whines about evolution?
Find a rabbit in a Cambrian stratum. Or find a mammal with genes from two well-separated lineages.
If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?
Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane.
"If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?"
Absolutely, since of course a deck of cards could just as easily have been perfectly ordered by the machine at the factory (is the machine intelligent?) or by a random shuffle.
Sure, the shuffle may not be a highly probable outcome...but hey, look around, does the universe look "highly probable" to you? lol!
See post #97. That would surely throw a monkey wrench in the works of evolution. And do not go on about the discredited strata dataing refutation the creationists came up with (already easily explained as a thrust fault).
How many times does this have to be explained? The odds of a deck of cards being in numerical order are exactly the same odds as it being in any other order. There is NOTHING special about numerical order except that we may value that specific combination above others.
IOW, if our numerical system went in order 5 2 6 3 9 0 1 7 4 8 $, base 11, then your perfectly ordered deck of cards would have no special value, being out of order, and you wouldn't think twice about 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9... popping up randomly.
Finding an ERV in both orangutans and chimps that was not also present in gorillas and people would disprove the currently-accepted family tree of the primates. Doing the same thing over and over, with, say, cows, hippos and whales, or dogs, cats and bears, etc. would destroy the theory of evolution, with or without some sort of guiding intelligence.
The machines used in playing card factories are intelligent?