Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

The point here is that ID is purely the result of xian creationists.The validity of creationism (any version of creationism) is not the point here.What you seem to be doing is the mysterious Yoda Dance: that gets old really quick, here.ABE: I'm sure Huntard cares that you may consider his post puerile.Edited by Larni, : ABE

What the hell's 'metascience'?

No doubt.I beats me how any one can claim ID is anything else other than creationism.Turning the word science into some neologism to redefine it seems an equally pointless pass time.Edited by Larni, : Added 'pointless'

Here is the problem: the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study.It's a bit like me going to a doctor and asking her to tell me what's wrong with me when I steadfastly refuse to tell her my symptoms; and then tell her she not doing 'doctoring'.Calling science 'metascience' is simply an attempt to redefine science a la Wedge Document.

The problem here is that you assume that there is a designer to have intentions. This is putting the cart before the pony.Rather than say "my hypothesis is that there is a designer; now I shall attempt to falsify my hypothesis" you appear to be saying "I assume my hypothesis of a designer existing is correct and now I go on to hypothesise as to it's intentions".That is not a rational way to gather information. It's like assuming someone is guilty and then assigning the motivations she must have had to commit the crime.In the words of the late 20th century poet philosopher Neil Tennet"Think about it seriously; you know it makes sense".

I don't see your point, here. In everyday life common sense works pretty well. Our brains are perfectly equipped to deal with every day circumstances.However, our brains require the appliance of science when a common sense ideas (say that the sun revolves around the moon or that all things have purpose) conflict with reality.You don't need to apply science to understand 'that' you like the pretty/handsome guy/girl next door, but you do need it when you ask 'why'.