Get it through your head. You are saying that ID created science. That means ID is above and outside of science. It is bigger than science. Science cannot model what it outside its own demenses. Therefore, ID (as you so strangely interpret it) is not science.
Theories do not require proof. Neither does science.
You're trying to change the argument. "Burden of proof" is the technical term in debate, which we're engaged in. It means you can't just state something without backing it up, otherwise your position is by default considered lost. It doesn't mean you have to absolutely prove your point.
In your attempt at debate, you've already exhibited several logical fallacies, the biggest of which is Petitio Principii. If you don't understand that fallacy, just answer this question: Exactly when did you take over from Monica in "servicing" Bill Clinton?
No it is not. Surely you know what "word for word" means.
It is. I do. In fact, the text promoting Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can be found at the Discovery Institute, the foremost proponent of ID. You fill in the blanks with God. Heathens fill in the blanks with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. True divinely blessed people know in their hearts that the blanks are filled by the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH).
Flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality that I am aware of. Intelligent designers do.
That is personal belief, which has no basis in a science discussion.
No. Science requires the presence of organized matter in order to take place. The one who creates and organizes matter does not thereby create science, but the necessary conditions for science. Man, the intelligent observer, is the one who ultimately does science.
You're trying to change the argument.
No. I've said from the beginning that intelligent design can fit into the definition of theory as defined by evos on these threads. That definition of theory does not require falsifiability or proof of any kind. Do you think I cannot back up the claim that the universe largely consists of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and that organizing matter for the purpose of carrying out consistent functions is not in accord with the meaning of intelligent design?
That is personal belief, which has no basis in a science discussion.
Show me a scientist who can separate personal belief from his practice and I'll show you a flying spaghetti monster.