"If science were able to define supernatural, or if intelligent design fit the generally accepted definition, then you might have a point. As it stands, the words 'natural' and 'supernatural' are philosophical, and intelligent design has been observed on a wide scale, i.e. it is not supernatural or unobservable in the least."
And... ID expressly holds itself to be a non-natural phenomena. No amount of waffling changes that. And no, CSI has not been seen and has been shown to be mathematically and biologically unsound.
"The historic devolpment of the genome has only been observed on a limited scale. A similar structure does not necessairly mean one entity is historically derived from another. That's what I mean by circumstantial evidence."
The common design argument? I already dealt with this:
Explain:
A) Identical ERV insertions at identical sites in humans and chimps
B) That 98.5% of our genome consists of pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses
If you label that "common design," you're essentially saying that the Designer is an idiot.
"Is the periodic table of elements circumstantial (or supernatural for that amtter)? Is their consistent expression of order and purpose? These things point toward intelligent design, which theory comprehends far more than a two-hundred-year attempt to concoct renditions of history that may or may not be in accord with objective reality."
Non-sequitur. None of that even logically follows. I think you're leaving ID and entering arguments for God.
Why would that be when intelligent design can be directly observed in many cases? You still have not answered either how science can define the difference between natural and supernatural, and why intelligent design must be supernatural. Do you consider all human implements to be supernatural since they are intelligently designed? Of course not. So why is some other arrangement of matter performing specific functions considered "supernatural?" Is it just because the designer is not directly manifest and present to testify of involvement in the design process?
. . . you're essentially saying that the Designer is an idiot.
Let's see you design and build a living, self-replicating object, and then we can discuss who the real idiot is. Oh, and be sure to avoid using intelligence or design in the process.