Creationism/ID as Science

To me, it is quite simple. Science is a discipline that follows the steps of the scientific method. This includes the formation of hypotheses. Remember, a hypothesis is not simply a "guess" as to what you think explains the observation(s). It is a well thought out, research, plausible, and testable explanation of the observation(s). This is then followed by repeatable experimentation (the important thing here being repeatability, and the potential to falsify the hypothesis).And with ID/creationism, we can stop right there. The idea or notion that creationism is a valid theory that can explain the diversity of life we see on this planet is absurd. Without even getting into defining what constitutes a theory, we have already knocked creationism out of the realm of science for two reasons.1. It presents no working hypotheses.2. As a discipline, it has never, ever, preformed any sort of repeatable experiments...none, zero, nadda, zip, zilch.So, unless you want to radically redefine "science", creationism can never hope to be considered a valid scientific explanation of life on this planet. It fails at every level of the scientific method, beyond simple observations. But you cannot have one without the other. Supporting evidence is tantamount to being scientific. It is in no way a theory. Look, something becomes a theory only after repeated experimentation. A theory is a broad generalization of a set of ideas that have been supported by copious amounts of experimentation. Look at the ToE...it basically says that life comes from preexisting lifea broad statement about all life on this planet. However, the theory itself is based upon thousands and thousands of specific, narrowly defined, experiments from a multitude of disciplines (geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc). Creationism has yet to perform even a single experiment. So creationism is in no way a theory...it's not even close. What supporting evidence does it have? Honestly, I'd like to know what you perceive as "supporting evidence", because this may very well be where you are mistakenly thinking of creationism as a science. It is neither.

If this is true, and I honestly hope that it is, then it's quite simple. When you see "evidence" claiming to support ID, ask yourself these two questions:1. What is the hypothesis?2. How can we design an experiment to test this hypothesis?Remember, for it to be a science it must meet, at a minimum, these two requirements. Of course, also keep in mind that the hypothesis must be falsifiable, and the experiment must be repeatable.
Now, go to the site you've linked and apply the above two questions to their claims...because this means nothing.