Do you see it as a "hole in the ID theory"? Do you see how unfair it is for you to cherry pick some stuff we don't know and declare said stuff to be fundamental flaws/holes in the ToE?
What other data is needed?
Yet when we say this, you say it is not enough.
Neither does anyone else. How often do we have to debunk your strawmen before you stop repeating them?
Back on topic, It would appear that what you are saying is
"If it looks intelligently designed, it is"
"If we cannot perceive intelligence in the design, that's because the designer is so awesome and beyond us"
It's not a persuasive argument.
I see holes in both hypothesis, common descent and design.
When I say wolf into a whale, I am not saying directly. At some point in common descent there is change from one family to another. That is all I am saying. I get it there has been some awful retorts by some creationists, and I think ID is suffering from the shell shock.
Can I tell you that a friend of mine used to play cd's while we were working out in the gym. Cd's by a well known creationist. I finally asked him to put on some music because I was too irritated to bench heavy. I pulled his arguments apart. He would laugh at "evolutionists" just like some laugh at creationists and laugh at ID'ists. His evidence was no more substantial than what he was denouncing, much of it was even worse.
Thankfully he turned it off and my bench began to climb again. There are good and poor arguments on both sides, but I do believe, there are good arguments as well. I just happen to hold to ID as being a better explanation for the evidence.
I find it very interesting to try to define and quantify what design and intelligence is. I think that irreducible complexity and specified complexity go a long way to do that. I also think that snow flakes, crystal,s and other patters are explained by chemical properties. Explainable within their chemistry, to repeat patterns. This is where information theory, and functional patterns comes in. Information and patterns that are beyond their own chemistry, like honeycombs. Bees have their design in their DNA, so are designed. Is there a way for science to determine if a honeycomb is designed or naturally occurring? Say the scientist had never seen one. Their structure could not be determined by chemistry or physics by examining the honeycombs along. An outside force was involved.
I think the same type of study can be made of some features of living things. flagellum, for one. Systems biology is discovering that the answers are not in studying single genes along, braking down biology into its smallest parts. The new research is in examining system wide relatedness. I think that is very exciting research and believe it will change many ideas of how DNA works.
"If it looks intelligently designed" No, goes deeper than that as discussed above.
"If we cannot perceive design... beyond us?" No, ID would not go there. IF specified complexity (design) is not perceived, there is no inference by ID.
There seems to be a perception that ID stands for "if we cannot explain it, it's God". That is not true at all. If it is not explained it is up for more research. ID is trying to define exactly what intelligence and design are apart from patterns. I didn't say it was easy, or simple. It just makes more sense to me given the problems I see with common descent.
