The evidence for ID is all around you and science itself depends on and uses it; it's the order and complexity of the universe.
There are plenty of cases in the world around us where order and complexity are known to be the direct result of intelligence; but nowhere can it be shown that order and complextiy can arise with out an intelligent source, or to put it another way, where the source is known and shown to be non-intelligent. The best science can do is state that they can't tell if there was intelligence or design behind the order and complexity.
To use nature itself, like snowflake or crystal formation, as evidence that order and complexity can arise from natural or non-intelligent sources, presupposes that there was no ID behind the universe to begin with and that's what you're trying to establish. You can't assume the conclusion to prove it.
If order and complexity are not evidence for intelligence or design, then science has nothing on which it can be based and there's no reson for anyone to consider that what goes on in science labe is either intelligent or designed, either.
Then you should have no problem naming it.
There are plenty of cases in the world around us where order and complexity are known to be the direct result of intelligence;...
Name one
...but nowhere can it be shown that order and complextiy can arise with out an intelligent source, or to put it another way, where the source is known and shown to be non-intelligent.
That isn't positive evidence, it is asking somebody to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.
To use nature itself, like snowflake or crystal formation, as evidence that order and complexity can arise from natural or non-intelligent sources, presupposes that there was no ID behind the universe to begin with and that's what you're trying to establish.
No, actually, the supernatural is not a consideration in the sciences. Once again you are asking science to prove a negative. What is YOUR evidence? What evidence is there for ID?
You can't assume the conclusion to prove it.
Evolution is a theory that explains the evidence, and it came about as a result of the evidence. The conclusion came after the data, not before. What you are claiming is just plain wrong.
If order and complexity are not evidence for intelligence or design...(snip the rest)
Why is it evidence? Listen to yourself. "If order and complexity are NOT evidence, then science has nothing on which it can be based..."(snip again)
You are again trying to force science to prove a negative. I am asking what is your POSITIVE evidence of ID. What data is there to support your position? Try to do it without employing one logical fallacy after another next time, please? Or at least use other fallacies. The same one over and over again is a bit redundant.