[burzum]

A theory? ID might be called a hypothesis but certainly not a theory. A theory is well-established, having survived repeated testing via the scientific method.

The reason so many take umbrage to ID is that its proponents put forth no testable hypotheses, yet offer all sorts of conclusions.

The problem here is that most people commonly refer to the conclusions of both a priori and a posteriori reasoning as theories. The theory of evolution, like any science, is the conclusion of a line of inductive reasoning based on scientific evidence. ID is the conclusion of deductive reasoning based upon some postulate or axiom that is assumed to be true (that God created the Universe based on the literal interpretation of the Bible).

Evolution can easily be proved false since it is based on evidence (i.e. find proof that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together). ID is based on an axiom that is assumed to be true, so it can never be proved false any more than I can prove that God does or does not exist or that two parallel lines will always remain the same distance apart.

[freespirited]

The problem here is that most people commonly refer to the conclusions of both a priori and a posteriori reasoning as theories.

The term "theory" has a specific meaning in science that differs from common usage.

Evolution can easily be proved false since it is based on evidence (i.e. find proof that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together).

Why that would be necessary to demonstrate evolution is completely lost on me.

ID is based on an axiom that is assumed to be true,

This demonstrates my point. In biology, we don't have axioms that are assumed to be true. We have the scientific method to test our ideas. Until ID proponents can frame their ideas in a manner that is testable, they will not make progress toward acceptability in the scientific community. They will also need to carry out the testing and publish the results.