Where is the Science in ID?

My previous post resulted in this exchange:

Dear Bill:

You wrote: Any theory to be considered as science must meet these minimum requirements. It must be: 1. Internally consistent,2. Experimentally verifiable
2. Predictively useful, ID advocates have failed to produce such a theory on all counts.

Ah no, ID has not failed any of these. It is obvious your study of ID is limited to what the naturalist evangelists have told you is correct. Your objections have been answered time and time again but you wouldn't know that? Pretending evolution is true is like pretending the sky is green. And no, ID is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. If science points to a designer, then it does. Unlike evolution which says, “we can't figure it out, but nature did it because that’s what we decided a priori.”

It’s so hilarious to see you guys claim God-of-the-gaps when your whole theory is based on nature-of-the-gaps.

If ID meets the three criteria that science requires, then:

Please point out where I can find the "Theory of ID" in a scientifically valid format.

Please mention a few testable hypotheses (if any) that derive from this theory (if there is one.)

Please indicate a few facilities (if any) which are currently doing research testing these hypotheses.

Please cite a few articles (if any) in peer reviewed publications describing the results (if any) of this hypothesis testing.

Please name a few Universities (if any) that include the study of the Theory of ID in any of their biology courses.

It's up to the person making the assertion to provide the proof. It's not up to Mayor Bloomberg to prove that there are no "little green men from Mars running around New York City."

Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution is not "true." It is internally consistent, experimentally verifiable and predictively useful. That's all that matters in science.