I love it when they make predictions. Here's what Casey Luskin just posted over on Evoluton News & Views (sic) [A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?]
Regarding testability, ID makes the following testable predictions:Such natural structures exist. They are perfectly compatible with evolution. This prediction does not distinguish between Intelligent Design Creationism and real science.
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.The vast majority of of species with novel information have arisen gradually with plenty of transitional fossils to document their evolution. In a small number of cases (e.g. Cambrian Explosion) the evidence for evolution from known precursors is too sophisticated for creationists to follow. This prediction is not supported; therefore, Intelligent Design Creationism is falsified for all species where we have lots of data.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.Convergence is perfectly consistent with evolution. This prediction is meaningless.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.Most of our genome is junk. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Intelligent Design Creationism has been falsified.
That was easy.
In this regard, ID is falsifiable. When we test these predictions, ID passes those tests.No it doesn't. Two of the "tests" are consistent with evolution so the "test" is meaningless. Intelligent Design Creationism fails the other two tests.