So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

Exactly -that's what we would do only we would allow for other possibilities other than the current evolutionary-based possibilities.
For example -instead of assuming that radiometric decay has been carrying on for millions of years at the same rate as it now occurs, we would investigate the possibility of accelerated radiometric decay in the past. I believe the research by the 'rate' group would be an example of that. They looked into the reasons why helium in the atmosphere is so low compared to the levels that it should be if the evolutionary interpretation of past events is correct.
Instead of a priori acceptance of millions of years as the only option, we could look at it from a different angle - how could it have happened short term if it did. Theorize according to both models of what might have happened in the past.Looking at geological formations such as the Grand Canyon, we would look at the possibility of lots of water, little bit of time.Instead of seeing evolution when we look at the fossils in the rocks, we could look at the possibility that most of the fossils formed in one big disaster and that most of the fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction rather than hundreds of millions of years of slow death.We could compare and contrast the possibilities that many layers of sedimentary rock formed rapidly rather than slowly.We could allow for the possibility that the fossils present in the Cambrian explosion represent the first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column and that they were all created which is why we can't find their precursors at lower levels.When we find fully formed birds below the level of archeopteryx, we could allow for the possibility that birds were always birds instead of looking for a better and more appropriate missing link between birds and their supposed precursors via the evolutionary assumption that they evolved at all.This approach would allow both sides to present their case and compare their results and thereby see which was more feasible given the facts in every case or question.We could look at the stars exploding and their supernova remnants and work out the rate at which it is occurring and the numbers present and accounted for and then decide whether they show millions of years or thousands.We could look at the human body and instead of assuming certain things are vestigial or redundant ,we would try to find their function on the assumption that if things are designed, they should have a function - what is it?The way I see it is that so many more possibilities would be available for investigation and who knows we may find out things we never would have contemplated given evolution as the only acceptable route.Your basic scientific method would remain the same but different conclusions may be arrived at given different models to work with and explain results against.It's not so scary airy fairy a proposal if evolutionists weren't so determined to shut other the possibilities out.Scientists that didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of a creator might want to prove that their predictions are better and so be it -show us that those interpretations produce better predictions.Lots of new avenues of investigation would be opened using a new model as an alternative explanation.

Unless the evidence opposing the theory does not exactly hit the headlines. Id proponents and creationists look for that evidence that lends support to their views. Evolutionists throw it away or attempt to find an evolutionary explanation for everything possibly bamboozling themselves in the process. That was in the days when they imagined that a simple cell is actually just some sort of blob -real simple -with that sort of information, one can imagine how the evolutionary hypothesis came to be accepted. With the current knowledge available to us, it is no longer such a simple possibility.Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

From what I think you're asking, I'd say that with ID you'd brainstorm along different lines as well as along evolutionary lines and test your hypotheses just like science always does.Evolution and ID allow for different possibilities and you can test accordingly.As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function.
ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past -lets find out what it is.Evolutionary assumptions of the past made many vestigial organs out of things that do have functions by brainstorming through the evolutionary perspective. ID sees it differently but it doesn't mean they're going to be holding a service while they sort out their microscopes. They might even pray for wisdom but it's not going to upset any non-believer because they won't even know and only hypotheses giving results are going to make any difference.
ID will give new options for investigation, it's not there to upset empirical science.
I'm not sure whether that is the sort of answer you're looking for, Purpledawn, if I'm not answering what you really need to know, please rephrase the question and I'll try again.

So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link?

My point is that if it weren't for the underlying evolutionary assumptions that has dominated science for the last two centuries, perhaps organs of the human body such as tonsils and appendix would not have been so easily classified as vestigial as they were in the past. If the opposing underlying assumptions had dominated science, these organs would not have been so easily dismissed as vestigial simply because their function was not known at the time.
The same applies to junk DNA being dismissed as junk, it's assumption rests on evolutionary presupposition.ID has the potential to further science by escaping the box of materialism.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is.

We have all the same facts only our conclusions make more sense - the majority of us were evolutionists first and moved over.The evidence for creation is everywhere unfortunately evolutionists are blinded by their evolutionary dogma.Look around you -does it look like a blind mutational process going on?What about the extreme lack of transitional fossils?
200 times too little helium in the atmosphere
Helium in the wrong places
Spiral galaxies winding up
Great shortage of first and second stage supernova rings
Complete absence of third stage supernova rings
Population count
Short period of recorded history
Second law of thermodynamics
Trillions of stars but we can't see one forming
Earth's magnetic field decaying
Not nearly enough skeletons for numbers of generations that should have died
Everything has fully formed organs -where are the developing ones half formed?I'm sure you must have heard of these things -what are your explanations?

It may look designed but that is an illusion because we know there is no God!! Fact or philosophy?

The fossil record shows sudden appearance of complex invertebrates in the Cambrian.No signs of invertebrates leading up to this sudden appearance.Fish appear just as suddenly fully formed -all different kinds -no half fish, half invertebrate to be found.Reptiles, also sudden.Birds -archeopteryx has fully formed feathers despite being the supposed first bird. Nothing showing how they formed bit by bit.Other fully modern looking birds have apparently been found at the same level.To change from a reptile to a bird means acquiring the genetic information for feathers as well as converting from solid bones to hollow bones, changing circulatory system completely and so many other systems its just not funny or feasible IMHO.
Where are all these intermediates that must have existed to get reptiles with scales to birds with feathers? Surely the most important links that really show us that these hectic transition took place can't all be missing? I want the half winged ones with solid bones that survived well and led to the next fully formed step that we can actually find. Where does the genetic info come from for these astounding jumps? One or two mutations (even if mutation had creative power of the magnitude envisaged buy evolutionists)would surely not lead to fully formed wing information, bone change information, circulation information and so on.Evolutionists seem so fond of depicting creationists/ID proponents as lying, deceiving, conspiratorial fools but unfortunately to us what evolutionists believe makes far less sense to us then what we believe.We truelly believe our supernatural creator model with fully formed kinds with loads of genetic variability available to begin with is so incredibly obvious. No jokes, no lies, no conspiracy -just plain logic unfettered by evolutionary indoctrination. ..and numbers increasing all the time as more scientists get the point of what the real argument is without becoming defensive and suspicious of alterior motives that truelly don't exist.

That doesn't make the slightest sense to me which is why I require more of an explanation than you obviously do.How does one progress from a reptile to a bird without developing wings and feathers and new bones and new circulation and an altered neurological system to support that and so many many other changes without developing these along the way.How would these things have developed fully formed by random mutations without a comprehensive plan?
This sounds like the frog and the prince story - both fully formed in an instant. Yes there is and it is not going to go away because it is scientific.If there were religious objections, that might stay in church but the objections are fully scientific and I just wonder where you get your information that you cannot recognize that.You imagine that I am deceived and I know that you are. Evolutionists repeat the same mantras over and over so they all have the same sources that are completely in the dark or else keeping their followers there.So tell me how did a wing develop while at the same time being fully formed with feathers and where is the proof that this can happen? They don't need to,they have those kids all week and can indoctrinate them into a mindless soulless random mutation type world at school and college. You may not believe it but it is true and I personally understand why. Or conversely why don't you try to explain to me how a leg with scales became a wing with feathers but both were fully formed at all stages.This must be the evidence that the IDcamp has been hiding from me and I need to see it.

The Ediacaran faunaa few things I dug up)"Narbonne and Gehling of Queen’s University, Ontario, were surprised by the “unexpectedly large size and complexity“ of the fossils (some up to nearly 2 meters long.)""Deep within the earliest Cambrian layers are complex animals up to two meters long, even lower in the strata than the Ediacara fossils similar to those in the Burgess Shale that dazzled Gould."This actually sheds the light of truth that there was no early animal evolution; animals were already there, fully formed and up to two meters long.These fossils appear suddenly fully formed, then disappear, with no clear relationship to the Cambrian fossils that followed. As such, they are no help to explaining the Cambrian explosion. Unless they didn't...
From an article on ABC France:“Dinosaur ”feathers’ are no such thing.” Instead, it’s just decayed dermal collagen, like that found on sharks and reptiles. A South African team came to this conclusion after analyzing the alleged feathers on Sinosauropteryx.
This casts doubt on the birds-from-dinosaurs theory. The team leader called the idea a “reckless leap” from the evidence, and said, “There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a proto-feather.” He called for more scientific rigor in the analysis of these fossils."Or perhaps you're talking about 'archeoraptor' the made-in-China fraud retracted by National Geographic but first accepted by same due to wishful thinking and prior commitment to the theory of evolution. Or...I don't have your blind faith. Yes actually -this weekend I heard about it and I must say I am very pleased. Unless they are actually the persecuted minority -watch the movie, it may have some educational value unless your evolutionary training has been to intense for your blinkers to be lifted. Actually they've come up with many.Again, watch the movie. No, they had a different name for the film -'Crossroads' -Richard Dawkins was also in a movie in the past that changed its name at the last moment -it's apparently quite commonplace to do that -the content did not change however.Whatever Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott said must surely still apply? Did they say something they didn't mean? Did they lie? Well if not, they should not be concerned in the least -their anti-ID feelings will just gain a wider audience of 'delusional' people (as Dawkins likes to call them that believe not.) I'm still waiting for you to show me some.