Is ID Science?

Here is a very good article offering a refutation of Intelligent Design as "science" --

http://techcentralstation.com/111005B.html

But I offer this counter:

• Many people who subscribe to evolution do not consider it a theory, they consider it settled fact. It is not a fact. It is a theory. And, to the point of this article, it will always be a theory because there is no way to "prove" the theory. Showing that some species evolved does not "prove" that all species evolved.
• Those who hold evolution as fact then make the next logical leap, which is a fallacy: if natural selection, then no creator. This has been the core of the enormous damage wrought by this "theory" over the years -- it provides a way to argue for the non-existence of God. It is a logical fallacy to say "If evolution = true, then God = false."
• The purpose of the "ID movement" is to really make this point. If you read the serious works of ID, you find they are not arguing for the Biblical God. They are arguing that the theory of evolution can't explain everything. They are arguing that the best explanation is that there is an intelligent design behind our existence. That's it.
• I agree that it can't be proved -- and therefore by the definition offered by that article it is not "science." But, the competing conclusion -- that if evolution is fact then God does not exist -- can't be proven either.
• Of course, secular and atheist scientists will never admit to that being their conclusion, but it is. Which is why I firmly believe that what we are seeing is very much the work of Satan. The corrosive effect of our thinking of "natural selection" on our faith and trust in God is devious in its simplicity.

* * *

I'm on that challenge for the $200,000! I think the answer is 8 and 16. Wait, neither of those are prime numbers. Rats! :-)

I look forward to the results of your test to magically have the results on the blank sheet of paper. Question -- is your experiment "science?"