In essence, then, you're proposing ID as a strictly scientific approach to the problem, which is certainly a valid thing (though not a universal goal among those who get collected under the "ID" banner).
But if you're going to approach ID from a strictly scientific standpoint, then you've signed yourself up for providing more than just an inability to "see much of a connection." Rather, you've got to show the specifics of where the current theory is incorrect; and after that, you've got to provide the scientific basis for why design is a better explanation.
IDers simply postulate design as an explanation for apparent design.
Well yes -- but on what basis would you objectively demonstrate that? What criteria could separate between "designed" and "naturalistic" phenomena? It would be hard enough to overcome "science's" existing animosity to ID, even with those criteria. Without them, ID doesn't stand a chance.
"What criteria could separate between "designed" and "naturalistic" phenomena?"
I think, as was mentioned before, that the roll of probability should be more played up by IDers when discussing with the hard-liners of the darwin cult.
In every other aspect of science (and technology) chances play an inseperable roll in the research.
Put more focus on the mathematics of it rahter than the mechanisms themselves.
Why not adopt the more plausible explanation for various phenomena? Would the discovery of canals on Mars be better explained as the work of intelligence, or natural formation? Most alleged evidence for evolution is ambiguous, like the seven archaeopteryx fossils. Is the archaeopteryx a "missing link," or simply an extinct species?
Rather, you've got to show the specifics of where the current theory is incorrect; and after that, you've got to provide the scientific basis for why design is a better explanation.
Why can't we search for the most plausible explanation given our current state of scientific knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena? Why should evolutionary theory be the default explanation of the origin of species?
IDers simply postulate design as an explanation for apparent design. Well yes -- but on what basis would you objectively demonstrate that?
On what basis would the discovery of a spoon on Mars objectively demonstrate the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence? It's a matter of probability, not certainty.
What criteria could separate between "designed" and "naturalistic" phenomena?
How do you know that a Dunkin Donuts has been designed and that a rainstorm is a natural phenomenon? We recognize the work of an intelligent agent when we observe a thing that was built to serve a purpose, and which could not have arisen by the action of natural forces alone. No one would argue that a Dunkin Donuts is the work of intelligent design. So why, when we observe design of staggering complexity, like the human body, something infinitely more complex than a Dunkin Donuts, do we assume that it arose by the action of natural forces alone?
It would be hard enough to overcome "science's" existing animosity to ID, even with those criteria. Without them, ID doesn't stand a chance.
I'm of the opposite view. Intellectual revolutions begin with philosophers whose ideas are later adopted by academics and, in turn, students, eventually becoming common knowledge many decades later. The philosophical turning point came in the form of two books, Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and Philip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, 20 and 10 years ago, respectively. What remains now is for these ideas to spread through academia, as is now beginning to happen. It's hard to say exactly when ID theory will become common knowledge, since most people reject evolutionary theory already.
This is the key question ID has to answer before it can cross the dividing line between philosophy and natural science. "Irreducible Complexity" seems to be an attempt at an answer, but the irreducible keeps getting reduced--we have yet to see an example of IR in the real world.
If ID produces a set of intellectual tools by which design can be distinguished from apparent design, it can become an expirimental science with the possibility of verifiable results. Until then, it will remain a pursuit better suited to philosophers than to biologists.