Note that this post follows the OP, rather than the ongoing discussion. Once again I have failed to notice 9 pages. Heck, I probably posted somewhere else in this thread myself.
Oh well, it's a good post so I'm sticking to it.
....With the exception of quantum leaps in architecture for which Behe coined the term "Irreducible complexity", the ID'ers seem to have entirely ignored these other expected features of intelligently designed artifacts. Needless to say, this is because there is a total absence of such features to be found anywhere in biology, and irreducible complexity currently amounts to little more than argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. But why is the ID hypothesis simply being dismissed as 'unscientific'? It's a reasonable hypothesis, it does make predictions of a sort, so why aren't the bastards being called out and made to explain why their designer designs with all the smarts of a drunken coot?
....Then the second point: the presumption that the designer must be god. No, this doesn't follow, maybe the Raelians are right and some space-alien did it. We know of at least one (semi) intelligent natural agent in this universe, and the most reasonable assumption is that if there has been intelligent designing going on, then it was done by some other intelligent natural agent; which may, for all we know, have evolved naturally. But again, god gets introduced and makes himself at home every time ID is discussed, whereas god is a complete non-sequitur. Why are the ID'ers allowed to run away over the hill with god every time?
I realise this has turned into a rant; but don't you think that ID'ers should rather be challenged on the absense of evidence for reasonably predictions made by ID, rather than just dismissing ID with the claim that it makes no predictions?
You are missing the fundamental reason why ID isn't science. Irreducible complexity is, but ID is not. And your proposed predictions are just a tad off base because they indicate 'human design' rather than simply 'design'.
Irreducible complexity does make predictions. They all failed when genetic science confirmed evolution and disproved Behe's irreducible flagellum. Turns out precursors do not always have obvious structural similarities. You can look into that for yourself and see what was found to be the likely precursor to the flagellum.
Likewise precursors to the mammal eye exist in nature to this day. Eye precursors were denied by the ignorant in statements like, "What do you do with half an eye?" which was another claim made ID proponents that has been refuted. It sounds like you recognize irreducible complexity's predictions have all failed. But you are unclear why ID isn't science.
There are 'tests' which can be applied to artifacts that indicate 'human design'. We identified those characteristics from observations. One can for example predict if those characteristics are found that there will be additional evidence humans designed the item in question. That would be a prediction hypothesized by the determined characteristics of 'human design'. It is because we can identify human design that the illusion is easily accepted we can identify components which identify inherent 'design' itself.
ID isn't within the realm of science because science needs evidence of the designer. You cannot determine something was designed without first knowing something about the designer. Say you went to a planet no humans existed on. And you saw some things which were natural and some that were designed and built by aliens. But, neither of the two resembled anything at all on Earth. You really would have nothing to base a conclusion on some things were designed.
You say the designed things would have a function. But nothing here resembles anything on Earth. How would you know if the alien was using something it found or something it made? How would you know if the pieces which broke off the thing the alien was using (cleaned up) were broken off first and the alien then used the item, or the alien broke the things off?
The only way you would know any of this would be to observe the alien finding or building the object. Nothing about the object itself would be clear evidence it was designed or not. Even if you saw little things and noted what looked like things which had grown you wouldn't know if the alien just made different sizes. If the things were stuck in the ground you wouldn't know if they were growing there or had been stuck there, or even if they had fallen there and became embedded or maybe the ground got soft and they sank then the ground got hard again. An alien bird could even build what looks like a tree in order to live in the top of it.
The only reason we know things were designed is because we have observed their origins and the designer.
Intelligent design as it is used in this case really amounts to magical design. Magical design could be anything. The concept of ID is someone's fantasy based on the illusion one can see things which are inherent design features. But if it is magically designed then there are no inherent features.
We would have to show that science can test for magical things. Magical things, by definition, don't follow the laws of nature. If we observed something which didn't follow the laws of nature, we wouldn't stop and say, well that must be magic. We would say here is something not yet explained.
Science has a specific set of rules called the scientific process. The one rule all these god theories violate is the rule that when you are left with magic as the explanation you really have no explanation. What you have is an unanswered question, not a question answered by, "god did it" or it came about because of magic. What would your testable prediction be? Magic happens so we should look for more of it? Irreducible complexity can be tested. Had it passed the test one would merely be left with the question, how did this thing come about? One would not be left with the answer, it came about by a magical designer.
! Eschew obfuscation!