3) When I hear that the goal of ID is to defeat "Darwinism", what exactly does that mean? Does it mean the theory of evolution through natural selection (in favor of theistic evolution)? evolution in general (in favor of special creation)? or the philosophy that Darwin's theory has inspired (Modernism)?

Darwinism presumes that all of what we are aware of in the universe is the result of time, chance, and previous natural and material causes. The initial presumption ID makes is that this may not be the case. If during any one of the times ID tests are used on natural phenomena they show a positive for ID, then the concept that Darwinism puts forth, that everything has a material, natural cause, is false. This is an argument concerning origins. The two presuppositions are opposing each other. ID has proposed tests to help determine which is correct.

I await to learn of these tests with much anticipation!

Inasmuch as evolution has now backed off the origins issue (despite the clear implications of naturalistic materialism) in many cases, declaring itself only a biological explanation of life diversity, ID is also looking at biological elements and processes to see if it is reasonable to think time, chance and natural processes are sufficient to produce what we see. It is in this area that the concept of irreducible complexity has something to say.

If irreducible complexity is falsified, which it probably will be over time, (there are already several systems that were believed to be irreducibly complex but have now been shown to have evolved naturally) would that prove ID as a concept to be false? I personally don't think so. The concept of an intelligent designer can not be falsified (which is why I think it is more of a philosophy than a scientific platform). Do you know how an intelligent designer can be falsified?

It probably can't be. The point is not that, however. The point is, "Is an intelligent designer indicated?" That is enough.

It's not enough to make it a scientific conclusion I'm afraid. Sorry, I don't make the rules, I just follow them....

Scientific conclusions are made everyday on less! Try the 'evidence' of 'transitional' fossils. ITM, it seems to me the rules you are 'just' following are those which say "Don't question evolution, because it is true!"

Note: At this point she has regressed to pure "young earth creationist" rhetoric: "There are NO transitional fossils!" Creationists have been using this argument for years now. Let me clear the air: most fossils that we have found are transitional ones. In other words, a lot of them are ancestors to species that came after them. In fact, all animals alive today are potentially transitional species to future life forms. That's all a transition is, a stable life form that was suited to its environment at the time. When the environment changes in some way and a new geological niche opens up, evolution continues. Creationists seem to be looking for a fossil with the head of a dog and the body of a fish. Evolution doesn't work like that.