Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

This topic? You're right, you seem to be whining. Asking you to provide scientific evidence, since IDers want to join this realm, is neither abusive nor unreasonable.As a supporter of ID you want it to be taken as equivalent and legitimate as scientific claims, so you must abide by the same rules...so kindly show the scientific ID evidence to back anything that ID has claimed. Huh? Thought you wanted to be in the realm of scientists. I can just imagine showing up to a conference or meeting and not presenting any data to back up my claims...surprise! I'd be in the same boat as you right now!"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

Okay, let's start, as has been suggested, with ID is scientific in it's approach, uses scientific method, and therefore should be considered a science. From here, what you need to state is what the ID theory states, not "predictions", but a useful/testable/falsifiable explanation for what we see today.Then you need to show evidence that has been provided by ID scientists, not to be confused with having alternate explanantions for someone else's data!, for the points you mentioned:1. Reverse engineering of biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core.".2. Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.3. Re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and4. Function for biological structures. So, show it!