[Southack]

There are those who claim that Intelligent Design isn’t scientific at all...that ID can’t be falsified...that ID doesn’t explain any life forms...that ID isn’t supported by any published scientists, etc.

All of those complaints are too broad.

Intelligent Design is provable and supported by published scientists (e.g. transgenic lab species) and falsifiable (e.g. bias in a system).

In contrast, it is Evolutionary Theory that has no published, peer-reviewed falsification criteria.

[atlaw]

All of those complaints are too broad.

As is your apparent assertion that man's intelligent ability to manipulate the molecular components of nature means that the molecular components of nature were themselves the product of intelligent design.

Such as contention is so broad as to be effectively meaningless.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Intelligent Design is provable...

Usually when we speak of "Intelligent Design" with capital letters, we're referring to a specific assertion about how the species we see around us in nature came to be. You seem to be saying that because some genetic material can be intelligently designed by humans--that "intelligent design," small letters, exists--that demonstrates something about the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis. That's the connection I'm waiting for you to explain. Has anyone ever argued that there's no such thing as intelligent design in the nonspecific sense?