[RussP]

"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)

[RussP]

correction:

"evolution isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)

[ARCADIA]

"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."

Evolution doesn't argue that god didn't do it. It limits itself to the observable facts. If ID did the same, there would be no ID.

[muir_redwoods]

"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)"

No. The statement can't be turned around and retain it's validity because to do so would be to assert a null hypothesis and no scientisrt would do so. Further, there are hundreds if not thousands of clinical experiments in evolutionary biology where the outcome was not known before the experiment and the findings were based upon empirical evidence deduced from the experiment.

This is basic, biology 101. Do your own research.