[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.

[Stultis]

The entire point of ID is that "Natural" and "random chance" are not synonyms.

Uh, no, that's the whole point of science and the search for explanatory theories: i.e. that there are reasons that things are as they are and mechanisms that cause them to be so. Creationists are the only (putatively) rational creatures on earth who think that "random chance" and "Goddidit" are exhaustive and mutually exclusive possibilities, or that either actually function as explanations.

[gore3000]

I'm just pointing out that none of these experiments were due to random chance.

I dot think he quite understands your point. The experiment was designed, it embodied the knowledge gained by human beings for ages, it uses the artifacts it took human beings ages to develop. This multiplies the odds in favor of the experiment by a tremendous factor. This is not true in nature, and it makes what would be almost impossible at random seem possible.