Uh, that would be almost nobody. Since we discovered some time ago that proteins are translated from RNA, and not vice versa, people haven't tended to worry about chains of amino acids replicating themselves.
It's a theory because it does make some predictions, even if they haven't fully panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionists. Their prediction is that they might be able to find some biological systems that clearly cannot be explained through natural selection.
That's simply a re-statement of ID, not a prediction.
They looked at various biological systems from blood clotting and flagellum to things like the structure of the human eye and felt that evolution alone seemed to be an unlikely explanation for them all, thus they formulated a different or additional explanation.
Alas, science isn't about 'feelings'.
What Right Wing Professor said.
No need to repeat.
Fine. Whatever the current theory is for life starting itself up. It's irrelevant to the point I was making.
That's simply a re-statement of ID, not a prediction.
The prediction is that if life were created it should show evidence of creation just as an archaeologist who comes upon what looks like a fire pit in a cave excavation assumes that if it was man made, it may show some evidence of being man made. Is the archaeologist not doing science?
Alas, science isn't about 'feelings'.
Determining whether one thinks that the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to believe a theory when all of the facts are unknown will ultimately be based on intuition or "feelings" rather than simply logic because logic alone is ofteninsufficient to determine the correct answer when there are still unknowns. Assuming that natural selection is correct, human beings likely developed intuition for a reason.