[Dimensio]

Any experimentation in the evolution field necessarily means a designer of the experiment, thus showing that ID was absolutely needed for the experiment to succeed. That's a catch-22 for the evolutionists. Because any experiment that they can propose won't necessarily bolster the case for evolution, but it will, by its very nature, validate the case for ID.

That's kind of a meaningless statement. An experiement for any scientific theory requires a "designer" of the experiment, part of the definition of an experiment is that it is set up deliberately. If you can demonstrate that the entire universe is itself an experiment (or even just biological life itself) then you'll have something, otherwise you're just playing with words.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's kind of a meaningless statement. An experiement for any scientific theory requires a "designer" of the experiment, part of the definition of an experiment is that it is set up deliberately. If you can demonstrate that the entire universe is itself an experiment (or even just biological life itself) then you'll have something, otherwise you're just playing with words.

Not really.  All I'm suggesting is that saying that such experiments, because of their very nature, throw a very big doubt on random chance.