I must totally disagree on that, intelligent design (tm) (c) is only a pseudo-science.
I find the whole notion that ID is pseudo-science to be illogical to be dismissed so easily.
I fear that we don't speak of the same ID.
For me ID believer main mantra is : "God (or a superentity that has all the means and attribute of God) decided how and when plants, animals evolve. And there is nothing like natural selection as described by Darwin."
The parallel was just to illustrate a point, still; it may have started with an idea/thought/intelligence, but it evolved further.
ID don't say "may have started with an intelligent being"' but "have started with an intelligent being and it still his conducted by the intelligent being"
You see the difference ?
What we do with technology is intelligent design (not to be confused with creationism).
For me, again, there is no link between Intelligent Design (tm) (c) and what humans do.
While there's no evidence to support it, there's equally no evidence that it isn't true (you can't prove a negative).
Of course you can prove a negative ! That's precisely the a point in science that believers don't want to hear !
Example 1 : there are no prime that is even
Proof it's false : 2 is a prime and it's even.
Example 2 : You can't prove that a planet is the symetric of earth by the sun (don't know how to word it in english, here a "picture"
Earth 1 --- 150 millions km --- Sun --- 150 millions km Earth 2
A non scientific, believing he can't be proven false, would argue : if you try to see by telescope your line of view will be interrupted by the sun. A scientific will then say : I don't need a telescope, look how Mars and venus move : if there were Earth 2, their movements would be different.
non scientific will then say: but you can't prove that there is no mars 2/venus 2 / planet X that will just compensate.
and so on for every scientific argument you will pass to them.
Hey, even for the case of 2 is a prime, a believer in "no prime is even" would finish to say : prove that 2 is a number so you've proven nothing. You will then try to give him the work of Bourbaki, he will of course understand nothing and then say : "that proves nothing"
For your "coronavirus may be human creation", I think it's the same : whatever microbiologist would say (if it was human made there will be signs of it, AND you can easily see how natural and known methods can make the exact same result", conspiracy theory are just like ID : you never can prove them wrong they always change what they say or disregard science arguments.
Kinda like the big bang in cosmology - hypothesizing/theorizing, but no definitive answer.
Not at all the same :
big bandtheories ARE a scientific theories, you can take consequences of each of them and see if they predict well what you can observe.
Each big bang theory that is not in adequation with observations are disregarded.
It's quite sure general relativity will be one day proven false, but by that I mean that a BETTER theory will make more accurate predictions. But meanwhile : Newton theory is sufficent for everyday calculus, GR is sufficent for nearly everything else, and we know where are the problems and limits of those theories.
Again you seem to put two things together to fit your own narrative/bias; Creationism != Intelligent design.
ID is so near of it... and so far from science...
Right, scientists never do this at all to fit their own narrative/bias?
One example : Einstein and cosmological constant. And what did he said when proven wrong ? "That was my biggest mistake".
The world isn't' black and white; scientist around the world have been caught hiding or faking stats/obs (and many of them do not believe in a "god").
Yes, human can make bad decisions. But really you don't see the difference between a scientific making a bad decision, lying (for money, prestige) and so leaving the field of science, and the whole purpose and meaning of intelligent design ?
Also, no matter how much or what evidence there is it's still up for discussion on how to interpret them, that's one of the foundations in the scientific method.
And that's exactly what IDers don't want to use : scientific method, collecting evidences and confront them with their "theory".
IDers have only one goal "proving" that god exist and twisting observations until it give them what they want.
I recall you the 2 main "arguments" of IDers : irreductibe complexity and specified complexity. Those argument were so many time proven to be stupid and false...
If I have to make a comparison it will be like someone arguing that relativity is false because the only equations they understand are 1st and 2nd degree equations, so as it's impossible for them to solve differential equations it means that nature cannot "do" that. yes that the "scientific" level of most of ID believers.
More : and, really, the way you speak make me more and more believe that you are an IDer, ID is based on a fallacy (called false dichotomy) :
"I [want] to see (even create) an evidence against evolution, hence ID is true".
And about discussing evidence in science : don't you think there are limit to that ? How long one has to "prove" that earth is not flat ?
After all, you can "interpret" satellite views to say that we just see a disk, that lasers lie...
The fact that there are many interpretations of the most complex theories in science (quantic mecanics, expansion of space...) doesn't mean that everything in science is still "free" for debate (unless you have a MAJOR hint that something is really wrong, and I give a clue to people that want to try : the bases of sciences are VERY VERY solid).
Hey, there are still people trying to prove (and, worse, believing they have proven) that you can square the circle.
I can put drug addicts and gamers in the same closet, but it wouldn't be more true the more I believe it.
In the case of ID and creationism it's more heroin addict and alcoolist (or alcool/heroin whichever order you prefer)