[blowfish]

Of course, by your definition ID isn't valid science because I can't cause an instance of non-human ID to occur in the lab (not can I find concrete evidence of a single occurrence of ID in nature).

In any case, your concept of science is completely out of step with the scientific community. I'll stick with them, thank you.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . by your definition ID isn't valid science because I can't cause an instance of non-human ID to occur in the lab . . .

Huh? Valid science entails making reasonable inferences from the evidence at hand. It does not necessitate causing physical proofs to appear. Valid science is speculative. It is hardly unscientific, or unreasonable, to specualte on the basis of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, that intelligent design might be a better explanation that - what? How do you explain the fact that particle matter organizes and behaves consitently?

I was told certain cells are "simple?" What does that mean from a scientific standpoint? How does one employ the word "simple" without implying an element of design? I merely pointed out that human intelligence, as far as I know, has been deficient in creating and building functioning cells, and even if it could do so easily, it is somewhat preposterous to assert it could be done without intelligence or design.