The only scientifically acceptable evidence is a peer reviewed paper. Philosphy or speculation doesn't cut it.
Do you know of any scientific paper that shows ID occurring in nature? I have not been able to find one.
A paper is not "evidence," except in a secondary sense. In essence, a paper is primarily documentation of "evidence" (data gathered through testing of some sort), and the conclusions drawn from it.
The peer review part helps to ensure that a) the evidence/data are real and properly gathered, and b) that the inferences drawn from the evidence/data are valid.
What I've asked for, and you have not provided, is some idea of what "evidence" (data) you would accept. Not a paper, but the evidence from which the paper's author might draw his conclusions.
Do you know of any scientific paper that shows ID occurring in nature? I have not been able to find one.
First off, we can note that there are scads of peer-reviewed journals that deal with various aspects of intelligent design in biology. It would be silly to claim that, on the strength of these peer-reviewed journals, that Intelligent Design is inherently without merit. Clearly it's not, because it's currently being done, and in a peer-reviewed manner at that.
The quibble you've added in, though, is "in nature." That is, indeed, a good question, though it does force one to ask you to define the term pretty carefully.
The term does bring up another interesting question, though: if the results of one of the biotech applications documented in those journals was presented to you, could you propose a test that, without prior knowledge of human involvement, would allow one correctly identify the human involvement in the process?
Along those lines, would you be able to propose a test that would allow one to correctly identify the human involvement in the development of characteristics that distinguish dog breeds?
If the answer to either or both of these is "no," then your theory is incomplete.