"Let's be realistic. The argument against ID is that there is no evidence to back it up. However, "acceptable" scientific evidence is supposed to be in the form of repeatable experiments observing naturalistic processes. "
Sorry, your premise is incorrect. When you figure out what is wrong with it, get back to me.
Well, now. This has been a fun read, R9. The above quote is rather telling, actually. Always the demand for something more from the one who bests you.