Evolution - Differentiating between ID and evolution
John Lynch at Stranger Fruit has a post on how ID, although it might someday be 'science', it is not there yet.
However to make this claim John makes some interesting comments.

If ID has something to say about biological evolution, do biological research - not literature surveys, statistical simulations, thought experiments, etc. Generate testable hypotheses that come from the design perspective. Make sure these hypotheses can differentiate between evolutionary and design predictions. Test them using observation or experiment. Rinse. Repeat.

I just have to ask. If this is a requirement to prove that ID is science, can Evolution pass the same test? The committed darwinist may say yes, but looking closely at the 'predictions' of evolution which have failed again and again indicate that evolution has enough Ad Hoc explanations that it can pretend to cover every observation. If this is true, then no other hypothesis can really differentiate between its and evolutions 'predictions'.

Wells’ work is currently an untested hypothesis. Even if we are unable to falsify it following multiple experimental or observational tests, it does not (as currently formulated) explicitly differentiate between design and naturalistic predictions;

It is interesting that John here contrasts ID with 'naturalistic' predictions.

just because Wells assumed the centriole was designed, and this allowed him to make a testable hypothesis, does not mean that the centriole was designed, nor does it demonstrate that a naturalistic origin for the centriole is impossible.

The idea that 'nothing makes sense except in light of evolution' and that evolution provides useful insights into research is often trumpeted as an important point, especially in terms of eduction. That ID can also provide useful insights seriously weakens the force of any such arguments.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, May 27, 2005