[aruanan]

Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.

[Non-Sequitur]

Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.

To use your analogy, the difference between Science and Intelligent Design is that the scientist does want to know who set the fire while apparently you would have us believe that the ID proponent couldn't care less.

[Shryke]

Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.

And? Do you realize, then, that the "Science" of this arson investigator stops there?

And that is exactly why ID does. It says "It's life! It's been designed!"...and stops. There is nothing else.

I still can't figure out how this is supposed to be useful to anyone, much less "science".