[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.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Er, where in the fossil record do you find evidence against ID? Note that I'm pointing out a paradox. It seems that anti-IDers want their cake and eat it too. You love your ID tools, but use the results to try to disprove ID. Sorry, but if a finite intelligence can come up with tools, there is no way that we can logically assume that an infinite intelligence cannot use the same.

The strawman that is often thrown up by anti-IDers is that since ID is unprovable, then it should be ignored or tossed out. This reminds me, in many ways, of the Paris medical academy's answer to the Pope when he was searching for ways to end the Bubonic Plague during the middle ages. They pretty much said that the answer was unknowable and probably had to do with a bad alignment of Jupiter.

So, if you wish to throw ID out of the equation, please stop using ID tools, since logically that is a no-go. All else is little more than hypocrisy.