An ID hypothesis is that abiogenesis is practically impossible without intelligent agency. A predictionmade by this hypothesis is that no method of abiogenesis absent intelligent intervention can ever be demonstrated in a laboratory. The prediction may be falsified in principle by demonstrating a chemical pathway whereby abiogenesis takes place. This is a legitimate hypothesis that makes a testable prediction. Therefore all attempts to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible absent intelligent intervention is an attempt to falsify biological ID. So I don’t want to hear the tired canard again that ID has no research programs. We have many of them and they’ve been going on for God only knows how long. At least since Aristotle in 350 B.C. said it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. Through Louis Pasteur’s experiments showing sterile mediums remain sterile forever in 1862. To the Miller-Urey experiment “demonstrating” how electrical discharges, water, and a few noxious gasses could produce a dilute concentration of a few amino acids. Biological ID research has thus demonstrably been proceeding for thousands of years and continues through today most recently with Harvard University throwing its hat in the ring setting out to prove abiogenesis is possible and plausible committing $1 million per year to the effort. But don’t you dare say that 2000+ years of failure is anything more than an argument from ignorance you ignorant IDers! 😛