Before you go accusing others of ‘not understanding scinece’ perhaps you should hone up on facts before posting- Science need onyl be verifiable
Is Intelligent Design Testable? William A. Dembski: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html
Is Intelligent Design Testable?: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=584
Miller spanked for making the false claim that ID isn’t sicnece because it isn’t falsifiable: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/09/title_43.html
Intelligent Design is falisifalbe: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494
OU Biochemist Phillip Klebba on the Bacterial Flagellum:
Pseudo Scientific Dogma: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pseudo-scientific-dogma/
What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-counts-as-a-plausible-scientific-theory/
Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinian-tradition-of-making-grandiose-claims-based-on-piddling-results/
You claim to be promoting ID as science, yet every one of your nine links is to a fundie website!
What's the problem? Can't you find any real science websites that agree with you?
When it comes to science, you have long since forfeited any credibility you might have had. It is clear that you have no real interest in science; your only purpose here seems to be promoting your own particular view of religion--which, incidentally, seems to be a very minority view.