"::::::::By ""ID hypothesis"" I mean the assertion that it's possible to scientifically show that some sort of a god exists.  I'm not saying that the hypothesis is testable... Dembski's ""explanatory filter"" only rules out other known explanations, it doesn't have a way to rule out design, and Behe's IC is simply an argument from ignorance... but there is a hypothesis (that you can scientifically prove the existence of God) which is intimately intertwined with, but is not identical to the wedge-drive ID movement.  One can show that the ID hypothesis fails on philosophical and scientific grounds entirely on its own, which is far more powerful than saying that it fails simply because of the deceit and duplicitousness of the ID movement.   

"