Creationism/ID as Science

I'm the friend in question in the OP.My position is simply that Creationism/ID isn't science not strictly because of the lack of evidence for it, but because as a theory it doesn't make testable predictions and hence can't be falsified. In addition, anything with miracles can immediately be labeled unscientific.However, I'm not really interested in debating him on the topic; I'm more interested in seeing what the community-at-large here has to say about it. Particularly the scientists.Thanks all!

Excellent post Rahvin! I'd just like to comment on one of your points: While this is true, I think the more important point about why ID and/or Creationism is not science are the bolded points made earlier in your post. With ID, this one in particular: How can I test for an Intelligent Designer? What predictions are made about what we should find? What mechanism does the IDer use? How can an Intelligent Designer be falsified; what evidence would an ID proponent accept which would make him say "Well, I was wrong. ID cannot possibly be." ? And in relation to all of the above, how do you know that any given set of answers is correct? How can you delve into the mind of God (or other IDer) to know the proper answers to those questions?ID needs answers to these questions before it can be considered a science - and it seems pretty plain to me that those questions are unanswerable with any kind of reasonable certainty.Violating Occam's Razor with an unnecessary addition is one thing, but I think the more obvious offense is in the particular of what is being added - generally, God. (or a functional equivalent)