P.S. Science must be observable and repeatable. Have fun kiddies.
Good luck with ID on those. What are you going to do for repeatability; ask your god to remake the universe?
Good point. When has evolution ever conformed to the scientific method?
"P.S. Science must be observable and repeatable."
The irony of "intelligent design" is its fundamental premise is not too intelligent, at least humans aren't. The premise human observers presumptively see biological processes as "complex" therefore human abilities to explain these biological processes as biological processes are doomed to failure, AND, the only alternative explanation is to have a more intelligent force dictating the biological processes.
As a science, which it tries to be, "intelligent design" is fraudulent. Cherrypicking gaps in evolutionary sciences is another element of the cause. As if we don't know everything about physics, therefore we can't ever and therefore an intelligent force is the explanation. Observability is not a condition for validating intelligent design.
Or, alternatively, science should be replaced with creation myths.
"Science must be observable and repeatable. Have fun kiddies."
Evolution can and has made valid predictions about a variety of animals. Repeatability does not mean that the process of evolution has to be reproduced; it means that the theory needs to be able to make repeated independent and correct predictions. Randomly choosing an animal, using your theory to make a prediction about that animal, and then testing that prediction is a scientifically valid experiment. Now you may argue that scientist do not do this in the case of evolution. I don't know. However, even if that were the case, that only reflects badly upon the scientist but does nothing to refute the fact that evolution is a scientific theory it that it can potentially be tested and potentially falsified via scientific experiments as I described above. ID has no such potential because it makes no predictions that can be tested. Moreoever, even basic notions such as "intelligence" are completely undefined and thus make the issue of studying ID on a scientific basis a non-starter. The fact that no ID proponents are asking serious questions about the scientific definition of "intelligence" is a clear indication that their intesest has nothing whatsoever to do with furthering science.
"Evol-Doers", I like that. Almost as much "Evilution".
The irony with your "blind belief" comment is how accurately it represents your crowd and how little it has to do with science. Science has no stake in any kind of blind belief one way or the other.
How is Intelligent Design observable and repeatable?