[balrog666]

So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.

This was agreed to earlier precisely because it's a meaningless statement.

It's exactly the same as saying that we cannot experimentally disprove the idea that a giant chicken from Pasadena named Harry created the cosmos.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.

This was agreed to earlier precisely because it's a meaningless statement.

Malarky.  If you make a blanket statement that ID is not true and cannot disprove it then yours is a statement of belief based on faith.  Exactly the ridicule that creationists are getting from many evolutionists.

It's exactly the same as saying that we cannot experimentally disprove the idea that a giant chicken from Pasadena named Harry created the cosmos.

You are using an apples and oranges argument.  The fact that "Harry" may or may not exist does not bias evolutionary science one way or another.  OTOH, I am talking of inherent bias towards ID that evolutionary science simply cannot get around.

To put it another way, any evolutionary experiment is done as a result of intelligent design.  OTOH I know of no experiments done or influenced by your giant chicken.