Answering ID critics

Over on the ARN discussion board the following 3 questions were asked. Here I have provided answers:

ARN discussion board

1. What are your testable predictions?

A. That we will observe the existence of CSI & IC in life.


2. What would falsify ID?

A. Demonstrate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for each- CSI & IC.


3. If what you are doing is science why are you trying to redefine science?

What is the data that shows IDists are trying to redefine science? IOW present the definition of science and show how IDists try to change it.

IDists have laid down the criteria for detecting/ determining/ inferring design. What is the comparable or any criteria used for determining that unintelligen, blind/ undirected processes were responsible? I mean besides the total and a priori rejection of any design argument.