That's completely backwards. ID explains the origin of data, of design, of life. When a man in a lab inserts a gene into an animal, we have Intelligent Design...we have a new life form such as a pig that produces human growth hormones.
That's science. Moreover, ID is a falsifiable theory. Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID.
But the same can't be said for Evolution. There is no published, peer-reviewed criteria for falsifying the Theory of Evolution.
So it's Evolution that isn't scientific because it can't be falsified.
...and because Evolution isn't scientific, it must be propped up by non-scientific means such as shutting down anyone who challenges it.
Hence, the article for this thread. QED.
There is a huge difference between observing the intelligent design of current gene manipulation, where we not only observe the process but are quite familiar with the abilities and habits of the science community performing the procedures and assuming the origin and development of all living organisms is based on the same processes.
"That's science. Moreover, ID is a falsifiable theory. Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID.
Is your statement "Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID." falsifiable? Is bias falsifiable? Is the procedure used to determine bias falsifiable?
Without significant verification that bias cannot occur without intelligence then the lack of bias in a given sample does not falsify intelligent design. Without substantial evidence that whatever procedure used to determine bias cannot produce false negatives, it cannot be used to falsify intelligent design.
You are aware I hope that even if your assumption can be verified it does nothing to support the concept that bias equals ID.
"But the same can't be said for Evolution. There is no published, peer-reviewed criteria for falsifying the Theory of Evolution.
Since the ToE is made up of a number of sub theories and tenets, each of which does have falsifiable criteria it doesn't surprise me that the overall ToE does not have a single falsifiable criterion.
To address your claim I would have to know which tenet or sub theory you feel is not falsifiable. So, what exactly do you feel is not falsifiable?
"So it's Evolution that isn't scientific because it can't be falsified.
You certainly place a lot of significance on the criterion of falsifiability. A theory may need to be falsifiable in principle initially but surely there is a time where after many, many attempts to falsify a theory that falsifiability becomes less important. Is the Theory of Gravitation still falsifiable?
What you have is micro-design. That's not the same thing as macro-design.
Or something like that.