You strike me as the kind of guy who likes to dodge and weave. You avoid drilling down on any details. You are like the infintry squad that lays down a lot of fire but never advances on the target. You strike me as the kind of guy who would say he voted for something before he voted against it.
My question is not a talking point. It is one simple question that asks for one simple answer.
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
"Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis."
Oh, let me see. You used a large font, so I'll be you think you wrote something important. Oh, gosh .... I think you stumped me ... Oh, wait, no ...
Here's the answer to your amazingly ignorant question:
You look at the complexity of the simplest living cell, and you run a mathematical simulation to see if it could have possibly come together by random chance, with absolutely no intelligent design whatsoever.
In fact, this test *has* been done, and the results were very favorable to ID. No, ID was not "proven," but then no scientific theory can *ever* be proven.
That's just one test. A million more could be devised by anyone who has a clue about the problem.
Now, I'll bet a dollar to a donut you'll either ignore this post or continue to pretend that I refused to answer your question.
Your question shows nothing but your amazing ignorance on the subject of probability and statistics.