Does ID follow the scientific method?

If we use Behe as an example then it becomes apparent that the IDM is different from the SM.Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Therefore, intelligent design had to be involved by process of elimination. (note: whether or not irreducibly complex systems can evolve has nothing to do with the actual method that ID is using)In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. For example, using the SM scientists did not arrive at the theory of relativity just because the only other explanation (Newtonian gravity) failed to explain observations such as the precession in Mercury's orbit. There needed to be positive evidence that the theory of relativity was correct, and that evidence was found in the form of bent starlight in warped spacetime.It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, but not used by scientists to construct the theory of relativity. It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.

When using the scientific method (SM) you question the theory that you are putting forward. If Behe is putting ID forward then he needs show how he questioned the mechanisms of ID. He never does that.Relativity was not supported by the collapse of Newtonian mechanics. Germ theory was not supported by pointing to the lack of evidence for evil spirits. Each of these was supported by testing the theory itself. The ID method (IDM) does not test ID. It claims to test everything else BUT ID. That is a significant depature from the SM. As has been pointed out, the conclusions made by Behe or others is secondary to the main argument here. In the IDM the ID claims are not directly tested as they would be in the SM. Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the fewest unevidenced assumptions is the one to go with. ID makes a ton of unevidence assumptions compared to naturalistic explanations. For evolution we have the OBSERVED mechanisms of evolution. No such mechanisms for ID have been put forward. We don't even have any evidence for the designer itself. All of it is assumed without any evidence to support it. Can you name one of these instances? Can you point to a generally accepted scientific theory that is supported solely by the falsification of competing theories?

Then describe for us an experiment that tests ID, and also describe how that experiment equally tests the null hypothesis. The SM itself requires you to make presuppositions AND THEN TEST THEM. They are called hypotheses. The SM also requires you to presuppose that your hypothesis is wrong and to describe the evidence that one would see if the hypothesis is wrong. This is called the null hypothesis.So how does one construct the hypothesis and null hypothesis in the IDM, and what types of experiments does one run to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis?

More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses?

A contention that you have thus far failed to support. You simply repeat over and over that they are the same without ever attempting to show that they are the same.I have shown that Behe's method of deductive reasoning diverges from the SM. Setting up false dichotomies and then supporting your theory by the collapse of another is not science, nor is it the SM.

You have yet to show how those basics are employed in the IDM. You claim they are there, but until you show how they are used you have no argument. Science is an actual activity, it is something you DO. So show us what you specifically do when using the IDM. What are the experiments, and what are the hypotheses that are being tested? What is the null hypothesis?