ID isn't science, it is a wish.
see post 214.
"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in ID. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d did it" is not known before the results are in."
"ID isn't science, it is a wish."
What I find interesting about this assertion is that it could be turned around to say exactly the opposite and still be every bit as valid:
"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in evolution. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d didn't do it" is not known before the results are in."
"ID isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)
To which the proper response is, Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in Darwinian evolution. I don't mean small-scale intraspecies evolution, with which I have no problems, but general evolution of species.
Well, of course general evolution is not subject to "experiment." It's not something you can do on a lab table. Like Intelligent Design theory, it's a hypothesis built up out of millions of details and assorted facts. You can put these facts together in one way or in another. You can argue that they can all be explained by survival of the fittest, or that the statistical odds against such an explanation are simply too high to be possible.
Indeed, as a great deal of recent work has shown, much of it by scientists with no particular interest in ID, they rely on our universe being particularly human-friendly, because if some of the basic constants were a little different, life would not have been possible. One way of dealing with that problem is to hypothesize an infinite number of parallel universes, with differing constants. But frankly I find that implausible.
Any mathematical formula is an experiment in ID.
In fact, atheism is a wish. I truly feel sorry saying this to atheists because it makes visible their greatest weakness. But the pain is potentially short lived.