That is begging the question: Intelligent Design states you have an Intelligent Designer. Expansion and changes in scientific theories are part of science -- when have any included an Intelligent Designer or creator? Science may have puzzles before it -- CONSTANTLY. How do these puzzles somehow postulate an intelligent designer or the hand of a creator?
Nope. Only that life was designed. Nothing in it about a designer.
Science may have puzzles before it -- CONSTANTLY. How do these puzzles somehow postulate an intelligent designer or the hand of a creator?
And the answers to those puzzles are often shocking and get pushed back by the scientific community, from Faraday's shocking notion that forces could travel in circles to Einstein's earth-shattering concept that time itself can flow at different rates. You don't seem to grasp how hard it was to accept earlier discoveries--how the very fabric of scientific understanding would come undone if science allowed for X, whether it be forces that did not move in a straight line, time not moving in lockstep everywhere, or a universe with a beginning. Now X is the idea of design. It isn't the 19th century anymore, and science isn't quibbling with what seems fairly straightforward today. We have surpassed hurdles of acceptance to the point that the idea that the subatomic universe is made up of multidimensional vibrating strings is taken seriously.
Now we are faced with a universe of finite age with fine-tuned constants, and we're in an increasingly unusual place within it, on a planet with seemingly unique properties, with an ever increasing view on the complexity of life, first to the cell, and now to a network of genetic information within DNA itself. And now with this article, we have proteins that appear to have advance knowledge of future evolution, making it increasingly difficult to explain through non-design origins.