Wrong.
There are no 'multiple, independent lines of evidence'.
They are 'multiple, related lines of interpretation of evidence' because they are *all* based on the same initial assumption (i.e., that the explanation *must* be natural).
You do understand that, right?
The real question is, do you understand the implications?
That I doubt.
That is a characature, but it is close enough to a definition of science: The search for natural explanations, as opposed to the acceptance of supernatural explanations.
Without such an assumption, we would still be explaining volcanos and earthquakes as the rumblings of an angry god or gods. Same for storms and disease and the movements of the planets.
"The real question is, do you understand the implications?"
I'm sure I do, but why don't you enlighten us?
js1138, at this point, GourmetDan has shown he is anti-science since the very core of science functions on the assumption that reality is natural and not supernatural. That, GourmetDan, is why you rebel against reality. You wish to believe that there is a supernatural operating principle. TO argue in favor of a supernatural explanation is more primitive and more speculative than anything arguement arising from science. Science imposes restrictions where evidence is a requirement. Your belief system denies that.
No, the initial assumption is that the evidence is consistent and can be analyzed and addressed through the scientific method (methodological naturalism). That methodology has produced the technology we use today (it is quite successful). Unless you are asserting that the Designer is above the natural - that he/she/it is supernatural - then the initial assumption of science can address the question of ID. If the putative designer leaves physical evidence then the current initial assumptions are sufficient to recognize and addresses that evidence. What is necessary, and so far not forthcoming, is a rigorous method to identify and differentiate evidence produced by an intelligent designer from evidence produced by nature.
It is more logical to assume that Earthly biology is produced through natural means than to assume an intelligent agent was produced through unnatural means and initially and continuously interferes with our biological world leaving no obvious evidence of its existence.