If a theory cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific theory. QED. How many times do you want that statement explained to you?
I've noticed that quite often when evolutionary religionists cannot verify their claims they throw the burden of proof on IDers.
Not what happened. I asked for a falsification criteria. See above. Without such a criteria, it is not a scientific theory - it's just blather (same as the giant chicken argument).
Fine, therefore I'll make a verifiable claim - and a challenge. It goes thusly: All experimentation has, at its source, a recognizable and absolutely essential design element.
This is an assertion without foundation and as such it can be gratuitously discarded. In addition, as I have previously pointed out, not all experiments are designed.
If you don't understand the first bit of that, it means, that your statement is not a prediction of your theory, that it contains no means of verification, that there is no falsifiable criteria attributable to ID/IOT, that is has no relationship to your argument or ID/IOT, that it is a meaningless statement.
Show me even *one* evolutionary experiment which has no design basis.
I already did.
So answer my question, how is your assertion different than the giant chicken argument?