The problem is that there are none.
In regard to the first question: Chaos, i.e. the disintegration of particle matter into such a form as to make the universe unintelligible and science impossible.
Nice and vague, because you know it will not happen. Show me something real. All Flying Spaghetti Monsterism needs for falsification is for us to find out that there is no spaghetti sauce in the universe, so it passes the criteria too.
For a real example in the ToE, we just need to find fossils that are far out of place in the dating in order for the ToE to take a huge hit, possibly complete falsification. We find fossils all the time, all it takes is for one to be found out of place.
As an aside, if you are going to make falsification the ultimate test of whether a theory is scientific, then you will have to discard every axiom science works with
As usual, the basic problem with IDers is a lack of understanding of science. Every theory has falsification criteria, due to the accepted tentative nature of every theory.
In regard to the second question, intelligent design predicts that organized matter will be found, and will demonstrate cause and effect.
It's already been found. You need to predict that some specific thing will be found in the future. The ToE did, said certain intermediate fossils must exist. In fact, Darwin said his theory was in jeopardy if they weren't found. Guess what, they were.
and will demonstrate cause and effect.
What cause? What effect? You need to lay down concrete terms for scientists to quit laughing at you.
One need look no further than a single atom or molecule to have evidence from which to infer intelligent design.
I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. I might take you seriously if you could tell me that in your heart you truly accept that it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is responsible for the order of things.
On the contrary, intelligent design is more comprehensive and more explanatory than any theory omitting it. Intelligent design theory even governs the change (within limits) we observe in evolution. You are woefully incorrect in stating that intelligent design is not a theory that deserves a hearing in scientific circles. The fact is, it is gaining a hearing except from those who are opposed to it on philosophical, rather than scientific, grounds.
Nice and vague, because you know it will not happen.
How would I know that? How would you? You asked what would falsify intelligent design and I told you. The fact that organized matter performing specific functions can be found on a nearly ubiquitous scale only makes the theory of intelligent design that much stronger. Your example from FSM is inadequate since the FSM was created by imagination, while intelligent design and its results exist in the objective world.
As for your trust in the fossil record, please be advised that many proponents of evolution (in the wide sense) acknowledge a lack of certitude. The record may speak just as clearly of intelligent design, with the fossil record coming into being under established principles. There is no fossil that cannot be made to tell a story. Anomalies persist in the objective world, yet are often being waved away by those who, like yourself, hold preconceived notions about what ought and ought not be.
As usual, the basic problem with IDers is a lack of understanding of science.
No. They would like to see an equal application of the standards evolutionists enjoy for themselves. If you want to allow interpretations of circumstantial evidence to be accepted and proposed with the certitude accorded science in the strict sense, then you should also allow the same from those who espouse intelligent design. If you want to call all examples of intelligent design "religious," then you should be able to do so on the basis of science and not your feelings about the matter. As it stands, it is you who have difficulty in defining science, not me. I've heard the definition many times and it by no means omits intelligent design from scientific purview.
I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. I might take you seriously . . .
Well, I don't take you seriously, nor anyone else who believes the FSM is a viable argument here. But I do take seriously our obligation as citizens to uphold what is written in our Constitution. If you really believe your philosophy of history deserves an exclusive hearing in public schools by law and under the guise of "science" then maybe its time you pack your verbal bags and head over to some forum where people agree with you. You know: Those people who think our Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that can mean anything the current milieu wants it to mean. HINT: This is not the forum.