"A requirement of a scientific idea is that it makes predictions which, if false, will discredit the idea. What experiment, or observation, could disprove ID? If there are none (and none have yet been proposed by the ID advocates), then it's not science."
OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter). Many others could be given as well, of course. But I'm sure you will continue parroting your nonsense anyway.
The emperor has no clothes.
How does observing macroevolution in the lab discredit the idea that species on earth were intelligently created?
What is macro-evolution and how does it differ from micro-evolution? Give an example of what you would expect macro-evolution to produce if it ever did occur in the lab.
I have another prediction. ID will never develop a set of tests that will allow us to objectively determine if an object was designed by a nonhuman designer. I also predict IDists will never be able to show that 'complexity' is a design only phenomenon.
"OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter)."
First of all, your "prediction" is not a prediction made by ID which is experimentally verifiable - it is a negative prediction about evolution regarding an event that might take thousands to millions of years to observe (other than the numerous obvious examples trapped in the fossil record, which you apparently discount). By the way this "prediction" is scientifically worthless, since you could always wait longer for the event to occur. Bad experiment.
How about trying for a truly ID based prediction, such as 'if ID is correct, we will observe X, Y and Z about flagella, which would not be the case under the evolutionary theory.'
THAT would be a scientific, testable ID prediction. I've not seen any so far, nor do I expect to.
No it wouldn't. In the first place, you have presented no argument from design that would prelude macroevolution. The absence of macroevolution is therefore not a prediction of ID. (But how could it be, ID doesn't have any predictions.)
In the second place, why is that ID proponents on this board are so ignorant of ID, far more so that evos? And I guess so ignorant they can't read either. On this thread and numerous others, Behe, Denton and others have been quoted as accepting common descent, the epitome or macroevolutionary.
Hmmmm, maybe they're just too stupid to understand your argument? Nope, you're wrong - ID and macroevolution could both be true.
Nice try. We're on to that one (the definitions of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are gerrymandered based on what can be nailed down beyond plausible denial. As I've noted before, there is a striking parallel to the defintions of "a serious accusation if true" and "not rising to the level of impeachment", as those terms were used by Clinton's defenders.)