Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.

First of all, we have to acknowledge that,IF ID is true, then the final consequence inevitably is that some questions simply can't be tackled by science. And the reason is, that the answer "intelligent designer" is an end-point. The answer "it was designed" is a black box, with no opportunity to ask further questions. What further questions are there to be asked? There simply aren't any openings left, any hooks available. You could think of it as a roadblock: "Do not tresspass; further investigation is futile. What lies behind this, is unknowable". This, of course, resembles a lot the infamous "God of the Gaps". Wrong. Intelligent design is a method of design detection, and not a god-of-the-gaps argument. Why would Frank Drake’s proposed messages indicate that they are the result of an intelligence? -->No webpage found at provided URL:

Here we see a message constructed by Drake as a method of conveying the presence of an intelligent civilisation. This message consists of a string of 551 bits. That number is divisible only by 29 and 19 (and 1 and 551, of course). As the SETI website explains,
When this sequence of 0s and 1s is converted into black and white squares, and arranged in rows 19 squares long, stacked one on top of another for a total of 29 rows, you get the picture shown here. -->No webpage found at provided URL:

So, why is this message indicative of an intelligence? Or, for those wishing a more simple explanation, why would a radio signal consisting of, say, the first 100 prime numbers be indicative of an intelligence? The reason is simple:
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can account for such a highly specified signal,
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for such a signal,
(3) Therefore, that signal is probably the result of an intelligence.This is exactly the same methodology that intelligent design uses. In brief,
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can adequately account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(3) Therefore, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the origin of biochemical system X.The beauty of this method is that it is readily falsifiable. One must merely demonstrate that biochemical system X can, in fact, arise through a non-intelligent process, and intelligent design will have been falsified. Any objections?Edited by Livingstone Morford, : No reason given.Edited by Livingstone Morford, : No reason given.

Actually, I was not aware that this topic has been dead for five years. Now that you mention it... (one of those "duh" moments).
No I didn't register here for that reason.