[Dimensio]

You said:
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.

As though it somehow had meaning. It is playing with words because experiments, by definition, are designed. Any experimentation in any field requires design, but that doesn't mean that the results won't happen on their own under natural circumstances.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As though it somehow had meaning. It is playing with words because experiments, by definition, are designed. Any experimentation in any field requires design, but that doesn't mean that the results won't happen on their own under natural circumstances.

But it does have meaning.  Too often those who believe evolution was done by random chance point to these experiments as proof of that fact.  I'm just pointing out that none of these experiments were due to random chance.  Therefore, such proof is sadly lacking.  The entire point of ID is that "Natural" and "random chance" are not synonyms.

[gore3000]

but that doesn't mean that the results won't happen on their own under natural circumstances.

That is very true however, let's look a minute at why we do experiments. Most experiments are done to show how something can be accomplished, not that something might have happened. The reason is quite simple, if something happened, the best proof is to look for evidence of it having happened instead of doing an experiment. The reason why this is the best way is that no matter how one tries, an experiment cannot exactly replicate natural conditions - even if those conditions are known. In the matter of abiogenesis, we do not even know what the natural conditions were when life first arose.