[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If I understand your argument, it goes like this:

1. People use intelligence to conduct experiments.

2. Therefore, life on earth is the result of the Intelligent Designer.

Have I left out any steps?

Close, but not quite.  My argument is that since all such experiments are intelligently directed, they cannot show the lack of ID in the natural state.  In order to do so, they must remove the ID element from such experiments.

ID doesn't prove the existance of a creator.  But it uses the idea of a creation agent as a working hypothesis to explain niggling facts that are often glossed over or ignored by traditional evolutionists.  Similarly, Jay Gould used "punctuated equilibrium" to explain gaps in the fossil record.  BTW, ID doesn't prove or disprove evolution either.

[jennyp]

From 429:

There are no ID experiments. How could such an experiment be constructed? This is precisely why ID isn't a scientific concept.

Name me one - just one experiment in evolution that is not directed by an outside intelligence.

Every experiment thus far conducted has been designed and carried out by some human entity - thus showing that ID was (and is) very necessary to the implementation and conclusions of said experiments.

From 941:

If I understand your argument, it goes like this:

1. People use intelligence to conduct experiments.

2. Therefore, life on earth is the result of the Intelligent Designer.

Have I left out any steps?

Close, but not quite.  My argument is that since all such experiments are intelligently directed, they cannot show the lack of ID in the natural state.  In order to do so, they must remove the ID element from such experiments.

That is wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! <banging shoe on desk>

All experiments about any aspect of the natural world are designed! You cannot have an experiment without designing & controlling a part of the phenomenon under test. The whole idea behind an experiment is to allow certain parts of a complex phenomenon to act "on their own", so to speak, while keeping other parts constant. In this way, scientists are able to understand the phenomenon's constituent parts and how they interact to produce said phenomenon.

If you didn't keep some parts of a phenomenon constant, it wouldn't be an experiment. It's inherent in the very concept of "experiment".

If you insist on keeping to your argument that any experiment that is designed in any way is inherently invalid, then you have just invalidated all of modern science - which would be clearly absurd.

If that's the price of holding on to ID, then I'm appalled that anyone would want to pay that price.