The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I think the proponents of Intelligent Design will have a hard time with steps 3 & 4. But please, have a go at it. I'd like to see what you guys come up with.
FWIW, there is no "one true scientific method." Just ask any archaeologist to replicate a historical event. They have to adopt a different approach and a set of criteria to establish or deny whether an event in past has in fact occurred. Same applies to Big Bang theory- we can't replicate it, but we can try and infer from available evidence (e.g. redshifts for example).
The thing, as I view it, is that those branches of science aren't quite "hard" because we use inference, rather than deductive logic. We can improve a theory's credibility, but never prove it conclusively as we can with testable & repeatable phenomena such as gravity (though the exact mechanism of gravity may be in dispute).
I also am given to understand that there exist a "Philosophy of Science" and there are debates on whether so and so constitute a necessary step in the scientific research. For example, testability and falsifiability are usually considered important in formulating a theory. On the surface, those seems to settle the question, but philosophers may dispute this such as not all theories can be directly tested (e.g. there is no way to test whether Napoleon was indeed the dictator of France after the revolution), but isn't any less scientific because we have the evidence to support the theory even though we can't test it. Same for falsifiability and other criteria which escapes me for now.
That said, I do agree that there has to be some kind of consensus on how we want to analyze the theory in a given branch of science, which I imagine most already has a good working model for their own particular needs.
Now, I'm strictly a layman and has the least authority to comment on anything, especially earth-shaking as the origin of everything, but this is how I look at both theories (and I'll have to be very, very, very general if we are going to be brief and concise):
Evolution theory postulates that we came to exist through a natural selection process. Therefore, we can test this by demonstrating that life can be created from non-life (cf. Miller-Urey experiment), transition from simple amoeba to more complex life forms supported by paleontology & taxonomy and replicated in biochemistry, and finally show the common links between a species and its cousins. Therefore, to falsify the evolution would be to show absence of common links between similar species, inability to cross the species barrier (to be fair, the exact definition of species, and thus definition of macroevolution is still in dispute last time I checked), and absence of transitional species in fossil records (such by logic we should have numerous examples of transitional species).
A common criticism of Intelligent Design is that it's based on negative evidences (e.g. if evolution is false or cannot be shown to be true, then ID must be true!), and indeed, if it were merely based on negative evidence, it wouldn't be very scientific and commits the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. However, we need to look at the most affirmative form of the Intelligent Design and see if they can depend on evidence separate from lack of evidence for evolution.
So, basically, intelligent design asserts that we came to be by an intelligent agent, because we exist in despite of strong preference of non-life over life. We would then test this theory by showing that all things being equal, elements would generally prefer simpler non-life molecules over more complex and energetic biological molecules, that conditions for life cannot be met using natural mechanisms, that the minimum function for any aspect of life (e.g. an eyeball?) requires presence of several distinct components working together. Therefore, it can be falsified by showing that there exists a mechanism for encouraging elements to prefer more complex structure with high information content, that minimum function for any living organs can be met relatively easily with introduction of different component, or mechanisms for producing new components.
A last note. It is important to remember that science has underwent several upheavals before and major theories once the darling of majority has been cast aside to the fringes. It's easy to picture the early astronomers who believe that the universe revolved as ignorant fools, but this is not that simple. They (whether the religion had a hand in it or not, I do not know) naturally assumed that since sun and stars were moving, and they didn't feel any motion standing on the Earth, everything else had to be moving. Of course, they noticed the problems such as apparent eastward motion of planets and tried to explain this by introducing new model that planets were orbiting in a different way, whether it was around another star, or in a elliptic orbit. Of course, those new models couldn't quite get the timing right so they went into far more complex models with several different orbits, and they were close to perfecting that theory until Copernicus basically said, "Hey! We're moving! It's the Sun that's not moving at all!"
Same thing with ether theory. Prior to Einstein's theory, it was the majority theory, but scientists were fully aware of problems and supplied their solutions to the ether theory until it was Einstein who upset the whole apple cart.
The point here is that to me as a layman, evolution theory shows the same pattern that other discarded theories went through- We've yet to find the "missing link" between the apes and the humans, and the history is continually revised as paleontologist make new discovery that overthrows the older proposed evolution line (e.g. it was Neadthernal -> Cro-Magan -> Homo Sapiens, then later it was Homo Erectus -> Neadtheranl/Cro-Magan -> Homo Sapiens, then several different variants). Then there's different camps within the evolution theory, such as punctured equilibria vs. gradualism for example. This tells me, as a layman, that the matter is anything but settled and may be likely never settled, and therefore when anyone asserts that evolution is a fact, I take this with *huge* grain of salt. (Mind, we're still talking in context of macroevolution, not microevolution, which is obviously observed today). This isn't something where we've already established a fact and are just tidying up the details, as is the case with gravity, which nobody will disagree with, though we may not agree with the exact mechanism of gravity (which is fine as this is now in bound of quantum theory, AFAICT).
So for me at least, I do not think the debate is going to be resolved, and to be fair, both camps has more than fair share of dogmatism because of all metaphysic implication either theory will create, and it's in our human nature to be prejudiced against a certain metaphysic model that we don't subscribe to.
*Sees my post*
Holy post, batman!
But the basic info is right about molecules bonding together often being lower E than unbonded.
Tsk, tsk.
