[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to falsify a theory in order to establish its validity.  Mathematics has many theorems that cannot be proven true, they can only be proven to be not false.

In order to falsify it, however, merely take away or change one of the universal constants, and voila (a french word for "eureka").

However, ID is not so much a theory as it is a mechanism to attempt to explain phenomena that is not covered by evolutionary theory.  By itself, it does not condemn nor condone evolutionary theory.  However, it does, through empirical evidence, attempt to show that random chance itself is insufficient a mechanism to effect evolutionary change.  It does not try give an explanation by showing what is, but rather, what is not.

[Gumlegs]

I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to falsify a theory in order to establish its validity.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. A theory that's been falsified obviously isn't valid. This is what I mean: In order to be considered scientific, a theory must be capable of falsification. IOW, if any given theory is true, X will happen and Y won't. If we observe Y, then the theory has been falsified. But that's the important part. There are all sorts of ways to make a statement that isn't scientific appear to predict something. Think of "The sun rises because the rooster crows." It's the other part ... the part about what can't happen ... that makes it scientific.

Einstein proposed just such a test when he theorized that light was affected by gravity.

This happens to be science, by the way, so I suspect that the light Gargantua sees doesn't do this.