Quote from Teleologist:
Well, ID theorists are ahead of you. They already suspect that the first cells on earth were products of bioengineering without having to know who the bioengineers were. They are embarking on the same type of investigation you say you would be on board with. The difference between you and them is over what evidence warrrants an investigation. Big deal. If the ID theorist's suspicion of design is wrong, their investigation will go nowhere. So, in the meantime, what's all the fuss about?
Your post is an example of why ID is not received with any seriousness. You act like ID should be self evident, and that everyone should agree with you.
Modern science is all about conducting
affirmative experiments, not declaring your opponent's experiments flawed by demanding the absolute exclusion of any possible contrary theory.
So, show me the money.
Where is your Mt. Rushmore sized monument that you hypothesize? Show me findings and conclusions which meet the are peer-reviewed and actually published.
This, ironically, is always demanded by the ID advocate from the evolution advocate. Yet, when the evolution advocate demands the quid pro quo, the ID advocate acts like the request is absurd.
Is it theoretically possible that we are the product of an alien natural intelligence whose evidence trail has gone cold? Maybe so, but where is your research showing how you searched for the trail and found something indicating that "they were here?"
It's not enough to merely hypothesize -- you need actual affirmative proof that withstands peer review from your opponents in the majority.
That's how the game is played. Not fair? Tuff. Life ain't fair.
If you can't produce credible affirmative proof for your assertions, other than dismissive statements, e.g., "design is self-evident" and "no way to prove or disprove chance", then your hypotheses are no more sound than a hypothesis advancing the actual existence of Middle Earth.
On the other hand, if and when you survive the scrutiny of your opponents, then you will be able to proclaim a scientific result.
Now, if you launch back into a claim that Dr. Susskind has demonstrated that the cosmological constant proves design, when the fact is that he has stated that this is not his scientific position, then you will again be regarded as not credible.
If you want to be credible, then you need the good Dr. to come out in a peer reviewed publication, affirmatively stating that his research shows that intelligent design is more likely than not, and that the scientific community needs to reconsider its entire theory of existence.
I've repeated myself over and over in this post for effect. It's really simple as pie:
Hypothesis + affirmative repeatable confirming experiment + peer review + publication = modern science.
Nothing else is sufficient. Period.
keep going