You finally noticed that? I'm impressed. Let's work with just two:
1. A theory must suggest new lines of research.
2. A theory must be capable of falsification.
This has been posted many times recently. If you don't know know what the terminology means, look it up. You don't get to assign your own meanings to the words.
We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.
Sure, Fester.
Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.
Define your terms. All of them.
Is that all? Where did you get these "tests?" Have they been empirically tested so we know for certain if a theory passes these tests, the theory meets the criteria of being "scientific?" How do you know falsification is absolutely necessary before an idea can be considered "scientific?" We cannot falsify any idea regarding the finite or infinite. Should we cease work in establishing a periodic table of elements since it entails an unfalsifiable idea?
The capacity for falsification can always be created by the imagination. The disintegration of particle matter and nonexistence of intelligence and intelligibility would be a fairly firm falsification of intelligent design. But perhaps you think science is merely about proofs.