The evidence for design and a designer

I think you have just shown why ID is not very useful in a scientific sense. We have real life questions that we want to answer in the here and now. We call it "doing science". So what is the evidence of this "perfection of balance" etc. ?What you seem to be communicating is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. Rather, ID is a preference based on emotion. Or we can get stuff done like biologists are doing across the globe without any input from ID "theory". We apply the theory of evolution and guess what? It works. For example, an algorithm based on evolution called SIFTER is able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy (source). Do we see any ID supporters using ID to produce protein function predictions? Nope. They are too busy conning school boards and 9th graders to be concerned with actually doing science.The evidence for the scientific vacuity of ID is the lack of scientific output. Like your post above, it is nothing more than flowery language meant to reinforce previously held religious beliefs. Where the rubber meets the road ID is nowhere to be found.

You need to understand what "potential" means to scientists. A theory that has potential is a theory that has the following characteristics:1. Explains the data we already have, and explains why we haven't made other observations.2. Makes testable predictions that differ from current theories.3. Is potentially falsifiable.4. Points to new questions and new research.ID and creationism have none of these characteristics which means they have no potential as scientific theories or areas of research. The whole point of creationism is to stop asking questions and accept dogmatic religious beliefs without evidence or any potential way of testing it. The whole point is that there is no way of determining if it is true, therefore it has no potential as a scientific explanation. Then why has no one done it? To my knowledge, no scientist is basing actual scientific research on ID creationism, and no one is planning to. No scientist is submitting scientific research grants based on proposed research into ID creationism. No scientist is publishing peer reviewed papers based on ID creationism. There is no exploration, only indoctrination. You would think that after such a statement you would describe how it could be analyzed, but you don't. Why is that?

Not at all. We don't know which is why we should be looking into it. The problem with ID creationism is that it says, "God did it, don't question it." ID creationism is a scientific dead end. Based on what? Are leprechauns just as viable as God?