ID/IOT – not even science

Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theory claims to be a scientific alternative to evolution. Is it? Is it a scientific theory that might be either right or wrong?

Or is it "not even wrong"?

What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
<snip>
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.

If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.

Of course, there are those who continue to support ID/IOT. The comments section is open for any who wish to propose some observation which:

1. Must be seen if ID/IOT is true (IF ID/IOT is true, THEN we observe X)
2. If not seen, demonstrates ID/IOT false (IF we see other than X, THEN ID/IOT is not true)

Happy hypothesizing!