[tacticalogic]

The point is that academics and "big science" use bullying tactics to "win" their argument, instead of openly engaging all possible directions their observations could take them.

What direction do you expect "observations" based on an assumption of intelligent design to take them? How do you propose testing the evidence to prove or disprove that it was intelligently designed?

[Mr. Lucky]

The question of whether an object or occurrence was the result of intelligent design or random chance arises in any number of other areas of inquiry.

[MrB]

This is the “intelligent design is not science” argument which conveniently ignores the fact that the original assumption of intelligent creation was what allowed modern scientific discovery to be pursued.