Why ID is scientific- short version

This is too freakin’ funny. Over at Jack Krebs DB (Kansas Citizens for Science which Jack is a moderator) I asked about falsifying the theory of evolution:

KCFS discussion board

One evo named Les responded with:
It’s easiest with specific genes. If a eucaryotic gene is unrelated to corresponding genes in similar (recognizably related) organisms then it must have been “inserted” by an unknown mechanism. An intelligent designer is one such mechanism.

Did you get that? The same people telling us that ID is pseudo-science are now telling us that that pseudo-science can falsify their science!

I can’t believe I initially missed it…

But anyway, OK. ID must be scientific if it can be used to falsify what is (allegedly) science.

Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

(edited on March 10, 2006)