Your two statements don't connect. Hurling bricks (whether in error or correctly) at the theory of evolution does not for one instant validate a Theory of ID (whatever that may be). You are trying to treat ID as a default answer, to be used if you can invalidate ToE. ID must stand or fall on its own merits (and I wish it luck attempting to do so, as the sum total of ID theory and attempts to create ID theory by its supporters appears to be zip, zilch, nada).
Wouldn't it be exciting to be the scientist to "prove" the existence of God? They'd be more famous as Einstein.
It's strange that the Discovery Institute doesn't have such a program. I wonder why they aren't trying to find real affirmative evidence of God? Maybe they have no faith they will succeed?
Please read some of my later posts. In short, ID is a rejection of evolution. Never said it proved ID, other than that if evolution is not true, can you propose other alternatives to consider?
I know I'm a little late on this, but your comment caught my attention.
Just for the record, I think we're all for having proverbial "bricks" hurled at the ToE or any scientific theory. This can only make the theory stronger.
As one anonymous person put it, it's the creationist habit of hurling "marshmallows", then prematurely declaring that you've knocked your opponent down, that irks proponents of science; especially when they keep reusing the same bag of moldy marshmallows over and over again.