Hilarious. The point is that no matter what someone “believes” about the “nature of God”, that “belief” can never be scientific.

“the fact that evolutionists are gravitating to theological arguments to debunk ID is a strong evidence that they can no longer find strong scientific arguments to refute ID!”

Hilarious. First you would have to actually define “ID”. Then there could be talk about whether or not there is any scientific evidence for such a hypothesis. If “ID” is simply “an unknown designer did something at some time in the past”, the how could a scientist find any evidence of this? Is there “Kilroy was here” written in English in human DNA?

The following is an excerpt found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

*****The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By “testable”, we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.
For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be “as they are”. No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of “earlier” events intact. In general, creationist and “intelligent design” conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons. Both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and neither one makes risky, specific predictions.*****

What would your response to this be? What would some predictions be if intelligent design (ID) was true and some if it was not true? My goal here is to discover if ID is scientific or fits the scientific method. I’ve always assumed it wasn’t in the sense that most ID theories are not testable. However, I’m not very knowledgeable in the subject. On the other hand, there are arguments for ID that seem scientific, but some seem to be common sense arguments, which is explained in the same referenced page as unscientific.

*****Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don’t curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don’t move, and that objects heavier-than-air can’t have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.*****

I am fairly familiar with all these instances of failed common sense; this argument contrasting common sense with science convinces me.

This a lot of questions to be answered I know and without proper context, but I get stumped up on the details and discussions of this matter intrigue me and continually test my faith.