I'd get into this argument, but I am le tired. So I'll point you all in the direction of
Mr. William Dembski and his amazing
filter. The latter link offers a basic description of Dembski's means of showing design.
EDIT: I got motivated. I'm now going to quote things that I found interesting and make comments. Ahoy!
Barrems wrote:
There is no disagreement among scientists (no serious one--it's about the same as the split between scientists that think that cold fusion is impossible and those who think it can be done).
Onikins wrote:
You know, I'm fairly sure the basis of science is that you have to be able to prove your hypothesis to be true. So yes, to do that you have to test it. However, it's only a valid scientific theory if the hypothesis is proven.
It entirely depends on what your scientific method is, what you value in a scientific method, and so on. If we were playing under
Paul Feyerabend's rules, anything works and ID is acceptable. Under most theory-dependent methods, you're left with ID being currently not up to snuff with evolution for terms of explaining things. Under theory-independent builds, neither really work as they haven't been proven conclusively outside of theory. Fun stuff, all around.
Barrizzle, on the rizzle wrote:
Oh, I wasn't aware the clergy relied upon the scientific method and looked for falsifiability, replicability, and requirements such as those. Oh wait, they don't--they rely on faith. Let's see... macroevolution relies on the scientific method, intelligent design relies on faith... Clearly, they are identical.
As stated above, it depends on what you're using as your driving scientific method. Falsifiability is nasty in that you can continually assume that external conditions are marring the truth, replicability can get messy because of the problems associated with inductivism, etc., etc.
In short, we're fucked. I suggest we all get tanked.