Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

If some super-entity can violate the laws of physics willy-nilly, then we can't know anything. If it can change the length of a day, we can't predict when tomorrow will come. If it can suspend the law of gravity, there's no sense in us building bridges. We don't need to rule it out any more than we need to rule out the activities of unicorns or leprechauns. As long as the universe is predictable, their activities are irrelevant.

Circular.Now you need to define what "purposeful" means - and how you would distinguish purposeful from purposeless.What is the purpose of a mountain? Was it designed to direct the weather?

And water was designed for swimming. Notice how it fits around you so snugly. The Designer must have known what shape you would be.

You define a vague concept, "design", with another vague concept, "purpose". How do you distinguish something that is purposeful from someting that is not purposeful? So you're defining purposeless as not purposeful. That's a little thin, isn't it?Tell us what the steps are. How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?

Vague to vague to vague is circular. So stop weaseling and be rigorous NOW. Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster. I don't like your copypasta either. If you want to promote Intelligent Design, you need to show that you understand the definitions. You have given no such indication. What you have done is the typical IDist weaseling. How do you do that? Probability is math. Show us your calculations. How do you determine the threshold of probability? I would suggest that any non-zero probability eliminates the need to postulate a designer.

I asked you to to be rigorous: "Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster." And you think that isn't circular? I have a problem with schoolboy definitions. I asked you for rigor but apparently you don't have any. Of course I can - but I'm trying to determine what YOU know. Not even close. If you're trying to overturn all of science and replace it with voodoo, you need to convince US that you know something. I asked, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?" What does your calculation tell us about purpose? Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you talk about probabilities, you need to provide numbers. Solid numbers.

So dictionary definitions and synonyms are all the rigor you can muster? No.When I was in elementary school, there was no Internet. Computers filled whole rooms and cost millions of dollars. The first calculator I ever saw, two years after high school, could add, subtract, multiply and divide and cost more than $100.We had encyclopedias. They were our basic research tool. But our teachers told us not to copy from the encyclopedia, to put it in our own words. That would demonstrate that we understood the topic.So, when I ask you for a definition, I'm not asking you to copy/paste something that took you three seconds to copy off the Internet. I'm asking you to explain it in your own words, to demonstrate that you understand it. Circular is using "designed" to define "purposeful" and using 'purposeful" to define "designed". Intelligent design is trying to overturn science. Defending Intelligent Design is trying to overturn science. I would say that YOU are the one who is too lazy to put any thought into what design and purpose are. If I have not been clear, go ahead and ask me questions. You're the one who doesn't seem to be paying attention. I said, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?"I'm asking how you decide that one thing is purposeful and another is not. (A am NOT talking about the letters "A" and "B", by the way.) I don't see the point, but just to demonstrate that I'm trying to discuss in good faith, I'm looking at:
1. A computer.
2. Shelves of books. (I'm in a library.)
3. Chairs.
4. A fire extinguisher.
5. A clock.I'm guessing we'll agree that they all have purpose and they were all designed.

Stop being so legalistic. We're trying to have a discussion here. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION. Arguments are all that matters. Nonsense. That's the first step in any discussion. Because they do not agree with your claims of ID. The point is that you CAN'T define "purpose" in the context of ID. And you support that statement by your inability to define it. In the context of ID, the "purpose" of something would be the "designer's" purpose. And you claim to not be defining who the designer is. So how could you possibly know the purpose of an undefined designer?Unless you're willing to have an actual discussion, you can stop wasting my time.

That's my point. Instead of answering the letter of the question, answer the spirit of the question. And you claim you provided definitions, so YOU are ready to move on to the discussion even if I am not. So move on. If you HAVE any arguments, why are you so reluctant to present them? You're wasting all of your time on meta-discussion ABOUT discussion. Get on with the discussion; present your arguments. That's entirely possible. If I have missed anything, feel free to re-post.Of course, the other possibility is that you skipped over my rebuttal(s). You might want to check for beams in your eyes. Um... ALL of them. How could we possibly discuss Flerbend if I don't define what I mean by flerbend? Clearly not.A computer program definitely has a designer. A painting usually has a designer. A dog DOES NOT have an obvious designer. That's why we have to be very clear about what design IS.So how do you determine what IS designed and what is NOT designed?

You have that backwards. There is no evidence of that intelligence or intention. You might as well say that there is no evidence that airplanes can fly without angels blowing on the wings.

All that is needed to conclude (tentatively) that there is no intelligence or intent involved is a lack of evidence that there is an intelligence or intent involved. Science doesn't have to "prove" a negative. A negative is negative until it is demonstrated to be positive. Intelligence and intent are not an "opposing extreme". They're empty speculation. Scientists are in no way obligated to take every hare-brained idea into account. Those "criteria" are a figment of your imagination. And your conclusion is a non sequitur. Evolution is right, regardless of what scientists or anybody else thinks about it. Nobody can make evolution wrong by having wrong ideas about it. It's your made-up "criteria" that are stupid.

You seem to have missed the bus. IDists accept evolution. They admit that the evidence points to evolution. Their idea is that an intelligence initiated and/or guides the process.IDists are creationists who failed to discredit evolution.You're no IDist. You're just another creationist denier. Ask a real IDist.

That ship has sailed. Evolution won that debate more than a century ago - and it's still racking up points today.

Google doesn't even want to search for "Biological Interrelation". It wants to search for "biological interaction", which is a real thing. If I insist on searching for "biological interrelation", it comes up with ONE book, Sayonara Theory of Evolution, Hello Biological Interrelation. The author, Edgar A. Postrado, seems to be a civil engineer - not a biologist.You seem to be a very, very, very long way from anything resembling a replacement for the ToE.

In this specific context, it is impeding people from accepting reality (by definition, a mental illness). You recognize seeing pink elephants as a mental illness; why don't you recognize the inability to see elephants as the same illness?