[Fester Chugabrew]

Forensic evidence is more reliable than eyewitness evidence in many cases.

If the mere interpretation of forensic evidence is what constitutes science, then why is it "unscientific" to interpret biological entities that function as machines to be the product of intelligent design?

[js1138]

For the simple reason that no testable design hypothesis has been put forward. Until design advocates have a research program, design is not science. You don't seem to remember anything I post, but I have said many time that design is not the issue. Living things have tha apperance of design, but the source of their design is selection.

Selection is not just a WAG. It implies many things and predicts many knnds of evidence that were not available when the hypothesis was first formulated. And many kinds of evidence not yet found. It predicted, for example, the minimum age of the earth at a time when physics was wildly off base. In short, it has survived 150 years of accumulated evidence.