[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Maybe because it is such a simple concept. Think about it. Any and all tools that anti-IDers use to try to discredit ID are themselves a result of Intelligent Design (name me one experiment or observation that is not rooted in ID).

As a result, basing arguments against ID on these tools invalidates the whole anti-ID premise. IOW, to state that a finite intelligent agent (mankint) can design experiments and observations that an infinite intelligent agent cannot does not even begin to make sense.

[WildTurkey]

As a result, basing arguments against ID

Don't twist the argument. ID is NOT arguable since it cannot be proved or disproved. What is being discussed is putting religion and faith into science courses.

[NJ Neocon]

I am sorry. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

In addition, you are ignoring my argument against your straw-man. Most proponents of Evolution BELIEVE in God. We therefore believe in an intelligent designer.

[VadeRetro]

Maybe because it is such a simple concept. Think about it. Any and all tools that anti-IDers use to try to discredit ID are themselves a result of Intelligent Design (name me one experiment or observation that is not rooted in ID).

Maybe it's a simple Catch-22 game.

Something seems to be observable in the fossil record or in the wild. Transitional progressions of fossils, or ring species. Molecular hierarchies of relatedness, analyzed post-facto from what is out there. "Not reproducible in the laboratory and thus NOT SCIENCE!" you scream, brandishing a crucifix Van Helsing-style at the evidence.

Something IS observable in the laboratory. "Evidence for Design!" you cackle maniacally.