ID is ineligible for consideration as science because theories that allow for the possibility of forces outside of nature can’t be tested or falsified.
In light of that let’s look at what Ernst Mayr had to say in the introduction that appears in “Origin of Species”, Harvard University Press edition, 1964, p. xii:
In Darwin’s day the prevailing explanation for organic diversity was the story of creation in Genesis. Darwin himself had subscribed to this when he shipped on the ‘Beagle,’ and he was converted to his new ideas only after he had made numerous observations that were to him quite incompatible with creation. He felt strongly that he must establish this point decisively before his readers would be willing to listen to the evolutionary interpretation. Again and again, he describes phenomena that do not fit the creation theory.
Huh. It appears like Darwin was testing scientific creationism and found evidence contrary to it.
So what is it. Is ID science or not science? It seems our opponents want to have their cake and eat it too by saying:
“ID is not science because it cannot be falsified or verified. And by the way, ID has been repeatedly tested and shown to be false.”