No, intelligent design has to demonstrate via evidence and falsifiability criteria that it better and more consistently explains observable phenomena than the Theory of Evolution (without resorting to "and then another miracle occurred and giraffes were made, and then another miracle happened and elephants were made, and then another miracle happend and the Bubonic plague was invented). That's all it has to do. That it does not, has not, and really as of this moment has no serious prospects of so doing makes it next to worthless as a scientific alternative to the TOE.
I agree, that is the scientific ideal. And it is fine to challenge the assertions of ID. For the most part, however, what I see on these threads isn't that at all.
That it does not, has not, and really as of this moment has no serious prospects of so doing makes it next to worthless as a scientific alternative to the TOE.
So you've written a paper on your research on the theory of ID, and your refutations of its claims? I'd love to see it.