Intelligent Design

[AAA]

Well considering that photolyase and other proteins arose due to non-repeatable chance events in evolutionary theory, and a non-repeatable creation event in design theory, we can't use typical laboratory science to test the competing models. We have to rely on the method of historical science outlined by Newton. When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures. Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters? Do we know that intelligence can lead to new  specified sequence of characters? The second one explains it better. Is it too religious to be science? maybe according to some people, but I think we should follow the evidence where it goes even if we don't like the philosophical implications.

You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events