Your position there is the same as you claim for GDR here: compatible but not a necessary prediction.
Sort out the difference between hypotheses and predictions. GDR is making a hypothesis of sorts, but he seems to think it's a prediction. Here's an example of an inductive I.D. hypothesis.
Animals can and do intelligently design.
Animals are the only known source of artifacts.
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that intelligent design is exclusively an animal characteristic.
A theory, like mine on the other thread, is not a prediction, but makes predictions that are necessary to it like: Obama is not the Antichrist. Obama being the Antichrist is logically incompatible with my theory, and would falsify it.
No possible worlds are incompatible with the general hypothesis of intelligent design of the world.
I have shown you other compatible explanations that put you in the same position you list for the ID hypothesis here.
No, you've put forward the view that unsupported hypotheses damage theories, which is false.
Anyway further discussion does not belong here ...
You're welcome to make your accusations on the Great Debate thread, but I'd advise you to disentangle your hypotheses from your predictions before you do, or you might be embarrassed.
You do not have a theory, you have only a conjectural hypothesis of the same quality as the ID hypothesis here, but are too blind to see it.
Which I.D. hypothesis? The general one, that the world was intelligently designed, which I say makes no predictions, or the one that you and GDR are putting forward which is something like: An intelligently designed world would have principles/laws, or something like that?
If you want to phrase that in your own way as an inductive hypothesis and argue it, I'd be happy to take on both you and GDR in a great debate.
But what I'm pointing out here is that both of you don't seem to understand the difference between hypothesising that intelligently designed worlds would have principles, and being able to demonstrate by logic that principles are a necessary prediction of an I.D. world. Why would a miraculous world necessarily falsify the hypothesis of intelligent creation in the way that an Obama anti-Christ would necessarily falsify my theory?
Anyway, if the board permits both of you to participate, and I see no reason why not, let's go for a GD on your hypothesis. Let's face it, the board's quiet, and we've proven that we can entertain a peanut gallery!
As for cognitive dissonance, I can understand that spending a lot of time arguing against people known as creationists while at the same time believing in a creator who created everything could result in it, and could lead to some bizarre resolutions of the conflict in one's mind.