Nature belongs to ID

I'd really like to hear more about this. I don't believe there is any such evidence, but I'm quite often wrong.

I find the dichotomy you are expressing here to be a bit baffling. If Intelligent Design is in opposition to Naturalism as it is explained here, then there must be some guiding designer that steers the evolution or development of life. How is that not religious? Is it simply because the designer is unnamed? Surely that position cannot be considered credible?

What would constitute a success for ID?

I don't think it is helpful to use the term "guided" in this way. It is true that there are physical/chemical limits on the mutations that can occur, but that is not the same as guiding. Calling these limitations guidance simply plays into other goofy speculations in an unnecessary way.

Further, I don't see any sense in which we ought to say that natural selection guides mutation. Selection determines the distribution of variation in a population, but the mutations themselves are occur randomly with respect to fitness.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm quite serious. What I mean is that ID has been discussed here any number of times, and I haven't seen any evidence supporting ID. I have not done my own research. But since you spent five days hearing evidence, I thought I would ask you to share.

My definition of evidence is putative facts, which if established, make it more likely that a given proposition is true, than if the putative facts are established not to be actually factual. So facts that are merely consistent with ID among other things such as the theory of evolution, would not be evidence for ID.