Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

So what you are saying is that ID's arguments for design can be scientifically tested, but ID itself cannot. Is that it ?

I am not sure that any ID arguments have of a scientific basis. The argument based on irreducible complexity was incomplete when it was first published and since then both Behe and Dembski have tried offering different definitions of "irreducible complexity", neither of which seemed to be very helpful.SO really I would say that some ID arguments might be science-based, if they did the science and the results supported them.

I don't see how you can say that. Irreducible complexity was explicitly presented as an attempt to falsify evolution - a causal reader of Darwin's Black Box might even believe that it was a successful attempt.However it was not successful. It has still to be shown that we can reasonably conclude that an irreducibly complex system could not evolve.

I'd say that there was pretty strong evidence that any simple dualism which allows that an ordinary human mind can exist apart from a brain is probably false. The so-called "split-brain" operation, by severing most of the connections between the two hemispheres produces a split in consciousness. The human mind is apparently dependant on physcial connections in the brain to keep itself integrated. Obviously a disembodied human mind would lack those connections and so would presumably have the same problems - at least. And that's before we consider issues like memory or the fact that physical damage to the brain can apparently produce personality changes.Presumably a dismebodied mind would split into two, have no memory and likely a completely different personality than if it were embodied. Dualism (or more properly substance dualism) is not exactly looking healthy from where I'm sitting.