This statement is absolutely true. The logic is biased and is my chief complaint with "Scientific Creationism." It's not an attempt to put forth proof of creationism, it's an attempt to debunk Darwinism. If they succeed, they will not have proven creationism, they will merely have left a vacuum.
That said, there is a lot of good research that can come out of Intelligent Design study. Whether the end result is to prove or disprove a design to the universe, it should not be merely tossed off.
It is obvious that Mount Rushmore did not happen by natural causes. Even if we did not know the history of the sculpting of that mountain, we would never believe it was created by erosion or any other natural cause of which we know.
But "It is obvious" is problematic in science. The first task of ID is to define the characteristics of something that was designed vs. something that wasn't. This would provide the basis for discussion.
There is no need to stop either naturalistic nor super-naturalistic researchers in their tracks while the discussion is going on. Trying to shut ID down because you don't like the implication is a bad idea.
Shalom.
There are such people? Besides Biblical scholars, that is.
Are they working on the God-o-meter, so they can tell where He is or what He want's us to do. Just ask the God-o-meter a question and a little light tells us what God thinks.
Sorry, I just don't think science and technology mix well with faith. That's the whole fly in the ointment of "ID", which is seeking to make the study of Christianity a recognized science.
Really? Like what? Suggest a fruitful research project to me.