Specificity, uniqueness, fixity, and irreducible complexity to name just a few of the predictions that ID folks have been foolish enough to suggest. Because ID cannot preclude natural selection its predictive value is nonexistent (i.e., it is always confounded by the presence of natural selection). This means that its proponents have been unable to make a prediction that separates ID from natural selection without simultaneously condemning ID to failure. This should be your first clue that ID has no merit as a scientific theory.
"Intelligent Design has in fact been proven to be able to program DNA (e.g. gene-splicing). Clearly an Intelligent process can program DNA because Man is already doing that very thing!" -- Southack
Why don't you understand the logical fallacy of your argument? Where is the laboratory with the PCR machine of the Intelligent Designer of all living things? Because we do something does not mean anyone or anything else can do it or ever has done it either the way we did it or any other way. On the other hand, if you knew a little more about how we came to acquire some of our techniques you would abandon your foolish notion that somebody or something has been purposely and secretly fiddling with DNA.
The way we do gene therapy, for example, is based entirely on the way we have found genes being transferred in nature. This natural process occurs at a rate that precludes the fixity of the genome and it is only one of many such processes.
"If an Intelligent Designer can program DNA, then it follows that Intelligent Design could be responsible for any or all known and observable speciation, pending further data and study." -- Southack
It does not follow. Ring species alone make this highly unlikely. What appears to be a single species is in fact two or more separate species at the extreme of its range or across gaps in the range. Yet this group interbreeds continuously across the contiguous portions of its range. Design is not responsible for this effect. It is a result of isolation and the random walk. You would know these things and possibly refrain from falsehood if you would just sit down with a good biology textbook. While you are at it you might also want to disabuse yourself of the misconceptions you have concerning the "Base Four" DNA coding you are always referring to. DNA uses four bases taken three at a time but codes for only 21 different amino acids. That means three bits have 21 possibilities and no more. And, by the way, the use of binary code does not of itself limit the complexity of the instruction set nor diminish the amount of data that can be stored. With five bits you have 32 possibilities but you are free to use as many bits as you like (go ahead and calculate the possibilities for a 64 bit system). Memory is also theoretically unlimited for the computer. (Even twenty years ago the Navy was able to routinely predict the effects in real time of a nuclear explosion on the hull of a submarine.) Biological complexity is more a function of the quaternary structures of the proteins.
Except, Intelligent Design does make such a prediction.
Intelligent Design predicts that speciation will occur rapidly (i.e., a designer introduces a new model).
Early Evolutionists refuted ID by showing that the fossil record recorded long periods of time between speciation events, but as more fossils were uncovered, they had to abandon their original "glacial" view of speciation in favor of a new variant of Evolution: Punctuated Equilibrium.
In contrast, the prediction of Intelligent Design has remained constant.
The sheer existence of Punctuated Equilibrium as a replacement theory to Darwin's Evolution demonstrates that it was Darwinism which failed the first scientific test, not Intelligent Design.
"Why don't you understand the logical fallacy of your argument? Where is the laboratory with the PCR machine of the Intelligent Designer of all living things? Because we do something does not mean anyone or anything else can do it or ever has done it either the way we did it or any other way." - Vercingetorix
There is no logical flaw in saying that an Intelligent process can modify DNA because we have conclusive proof that Man has and can program DNA via gene-splicing.
In other words, Intelligent Design has been proven to be responsible for certain varieties of Life (i.e., those life forms for which Man has used his gene-splicing techniques).
Yet you rule out Intelligent Design as impossible because you say that it fails all scientific tests.
That's ridiculous, as I can show you Life form variants that have already been created by Intelligent Design (e.g. growing human organs in pigs).
That doesn't mean a thing. We still see Base-4 programming in DNA because we see four different codons (A, C, G, and T). Whether or not all possibilities of combinations and permutations of Base-4 are used changes nothing.