First, you said this:
Originally Posted by mican333
[I]f the evidence does not support something as a theory, one cannot say that it is a scientific theory.
That is, if evidence doesn't point to X, then X isn't a scientific theory. This is the position you've taken.
The evidence doesn't point to Newtonian mechanics (see e.g. experimental data inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics). So, according to you, Newtonian mechanics isn't a scientific theory.
Second, even if I had misstated your view, you still have no basis to attribute to me the view that Newtonian mechanics is not a scientific theory, which you did here:
Then you have answered your own question "Do we really want to say that Newtonian physics isn't a scientific theory?"
Apparently you'd say "yes" to your question.
Okay, what reasons are there to think that ID is not testable or not falsifiable?
And I've stated the criteria. A theory must be testable and falsifiable.
What support? If you're referring to this link, it merely states the claim without giving any argument or support. It doesn't seem that you've given any reasons, or any sources that give reasons, to think that ID is not testable or not falsifiable.
Because I provided support to that effect.
Even if you don't want to accept my support, it has been given.