Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Using established terminology is always far superior to making up new words and then refusing to define your made-up words (eg, "evolutionist"). That should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers.Honest discussion depends on both sides understanding and agreeing to the definitions of the terminology used in the discussion. Without that mutual understanding and agreement, discussion cannot happen. Introducing made-up or misdefined primary terminology without providing their new/fabricated meanings can have no other possible effect than to generate confusion.Confusion serves no function in honest discussion and hinders honest discussion. Confusion does however serve a purpose in deception. Honest discussion hinders the practice of deception in that honesty and the presentation of actual facts ends up exposing the deception for what it is. Therefore, those who wish to practice deception (eg, creationists) have a vested interest in generating as much confusion as they possibly can as they do everything they can to sabotage attempts at honest discussion.A very common creationist tactic is to make up new words or to redefine existing words to mean something completely different ... and then to refuse to share that new definition/redefinition with others especially when directly requested to do so. That is why they are all so terrified of our simple direct question: "What are you talking about?"BTW, not all creationists are in on the deception, but rather are themselves victims of it. All they know is the lies that the creationists have taught them. They have memorized the claims and the words (eg, "evolutionist") but never learned any of what's behind those claims nor what those words mean. That is why they are so terrified of our attempts to discuss their claims with them: They literally do not know what they are talking about, so they are literally incapable of discussing those claims. Or the meanings of the terms that they use.Banned member Faith was one of the most flagrant violators, making up nonsensical geological terminology while explicitly refusing to even try to learn the actual terminology. She ended up a victim of her own confusion, incapable of understanding anything, including her own false creationist claims (again, "false creationist" is redundant). Now sensei is following in her meandering footsteps.And it is those creationists abysmally ignorant of their own creationism who show up here and in other forums. The smarter more self-aware creationists who fully realize what they are doing know better than to expose themselves to those of us who know what they are up to. It's only the dumb and ignorant ones who think they have a real argument behind them and not just pure bullshit. "Evolutionist" is nothing but more creationist bullshit which they deploy in their efforts to deceive.They do so to serve their god, a god who must be served through lies and deception. Christian doctrine clearly identifies who that god is ... and it sure as hell ain't YHWH (יהוה)!

They actually mean for it to be redundant, like "dishonest creationist". In four decades of watching creationists use that term and refuse to define it, I have seen them constantly equate "evolutionist" with "atheist" ... not that they understand what an atheist is either.From my field observations, they divide the world, in re "origins", into two opposite and opposing camps: creationists and evolutionists. Basic definitions are that evolutionists accept evolution and creationists don't, but in their minds they're thinking, "Creationists accept God while evolutionists, who are atheists, reject and oppose God. Evolutionists are atheists and atheists are evolutionists. They are one and the same thing."A side benefit for them -- and purely by accident, I'm sure -- is at "debates" or wherever a creationist can have his opponent introduced as an "evolutionist", at which point the same thought clicks in the mind of every creationist in the audience: "The opponent is an atheist!" Regardless of the opponent's actual theistic position, to the audience he has all be admitted to them that he's an atheist. IOW, the word "evolutionist" is mainly just a dog whistle.But we haven't gotten the weird part yet. Yeah, it gets weird! Because according to creationists, the vast majority of Christians are atheists because they accept evolution and hence are evolutionists!This stems back to their Two Model Approach (TMA) which asserts two-and-only-two mutually exclusive "models": the "Creation Model" and the "Evolution Model". The TMA formed the basis for all creationist tactics: "Only one of the two models can be true, so if I can disprove (or at least cast doubt on) the Evolution Model, then I have proven Creation." Creationists Drs. H.Morris and Gish would start every debate by establishing the TMA. When I wrote to Dr. Henry Morris asking why no positive evidence for Creation, he responded emphatically that negative evidence against evolution is "positive" evidence for Creation. Thus, they think they can prove Creation by taking a few pokes at "evolution" without ever having to present any evidence for their "Creation Model", or defend it, or discuss it, or even to present it at all. They think they can prove Creation without ever having to tell anybody what it is.In their "two-models balanced treatment" school materials and books intended for the general public, they creationists are very careful to be extremely vague about their "creation model". Officially, they just wave their hands and make vague references to "some unnamed Creator". The reason for this is that they had started out being honest about what creationism was based on, Bible verses and all. But part of the aftermath of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) et alia, besides the demise of their "monkey laws", was the Lemon Test which disallowed their religious beliefs as a basis for barring the teaching of evolution in the public schools. So they took their already written textbooks and superficially scrubbed all explicit Christian references from them in what has been described as "The Game of Hide the Bible." Part of that game was to create the Two Model Approach and "creation science" as a deliberate legal deception to get around the courts (Lie: "Our opposition to evolution is based entirely on scientific reasons. Nothing religious about it.").That is why they keep their public description of their "Creation Model" so vague, to maintain the public face of their deception. But amongst themselves they are more forthcoming; my page on the Creation Model which quotes directly and verbatim from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR):

1. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
2. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence.
3. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
4. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, on the basis of scientific evidence.
5. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence.
6. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence.
7. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence.

That page follows the ICR presentation by also including their "Biblical Creation Model" which, point for point, is exactly the same as their "Scientific Creation Model" listed above except each point is "on the basis of Genesis". The 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law included the same definition of the "Creation Model", which helped the judge to identify creationism as being religious and hence failing the Lemon Test. Note that the Louisiana law passed shortly after that trial was identical to the Arkanasa law (both were based on the same model bill) except it left out the definition for the "creation model" -- that one went to the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) where it was found to be unconstitutional, creating the legal precedence that creationism is indeed religious, which led to the new creationist game of hiding behind "intelligent design" (ie, creating the new game of "Hide the Creationism").That is relevant because it shows that the "Creation Model" is very narrowly defined as young earth creationism (YEC), which includes both the Global Flood and a young earth (no more than 10,000 years, because saying "6,000 years" would reveal the deception). And according to the Two Model Approach, that makes their "Evolution Model" everything else, everything that isn't in their YEC "Creation Model". Dr. Henry Morris even expressed it explicitly, saying that the "atheistic" "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." That means that according to creationists as per the Two Model Approach, the vast majority of theists are actually atheists, including the vast majority of Christians since they are not YECs.So then through the logic of the Two Model Approach, an "evolutionist" would be one who is not a creationist. And in order to be a creationist you must be a YEC -- even if you believe in the Christian god and Jesus and in Divine Creation but not in the Flood or in a young earth then you are an atheistic "evolutionist".So then, as we already knew, their term "evolutionist" is nothing but stupid bullshit. It don't mean a thing.

Science is very broad. Such term is vague and unspecific. Consensus science includes me in almost every field. The term evolutionist does not.And there are many people who support common ancestry that are not biologists. So your terms are not good at all.

Sensei, who do think manifests this consensus? I doubt very much if it includes you in any field. To be considered in the consensus you have to be recognized by your peers as expert in the specifics of the subject. Unless you're a bigwig in the specific science you are not qualified and your views are not considered. What is this supposed to mean? A lot of people support The Dallas Cowboys that are not from Texas either. I fail to see where support for an observation of fact is limited by your discipline.

I just want to know if we all agree on the basic terminology. Sensei, the ball is in your court.

You are not a moderator. How about you back off.

The point is that over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. There is no debate within science. The only debate that exists is outside of science, and the dissenters are basing their rejection of the theory on their religious beliefs. The sides really are science and religious dogma.

Do you believe that scientific consensus is always correct?

Most people are not biologists, yet many of them side with the evolution theory and common descent.If you disagree, then how do you define biologist? Is everybody who follows evolution theory a biologist?

I'm saying, I follow scientific consensus on quantum mechanics and on many other topics and theories in many different fields.Scientific consensus is a bad term to describe all members who are on the side of evolution, as science is much broader than biology, and biology is much broader than origin of species.

Grumpy as usual. How about I exercise freedom of speech?

You reject the scientific consensus of evolution because of religion, not science.

"Scientific consensus" is an excellent descriptive term to those who understand what it is.You're trying to obfuscate the language.A scientific consensus on a specific issue is achieved by the knowledge experts in that field NOT by other scientists in other fields.Biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and others of related disciplines have a voice in determining any consensus about common descent, nested hierarchies and relatedness. Computer scientists, chemists, nuclear physicists and most certainly internet denizens without any scholastic standing, do not.Of all the knowledge experts in the biological fields the vast majority understand and agree with what a nested hierarchy is and what it represents. The outliers, any other scientist from any other field and internet lurkers have no say. But not biology, not evolution, because your religion is involved. Hypocrite.

Making dumb excuses for why you don't like a word, is your problem.

Another one of your false assumptions. You evolutionists are full of those.