James R<< It seems to me that most claims of ID are negative. They proceed along lines like: "Darwinian evolution can't explain X, so X must have been intelligently designed". However, no compelling evidence of intelligent design is provided. And, of course, it is not true that if Darwinian evolution can't explain X, X must be due to ID.>> Yet when I ask ID critics what type of data they would consider as evidence for ID they often say, " Find something that would not be predicted and cannot be explained by evolution " thus pushing the ID proponent in the very direction of the stereotype held by the ID critic. If an ID proponent were to seriously try to provide what the ID critic demands he/she would come off as an anti-evolutionist or Creationist. Thus, attempts to find the evidence the ID critics want would fuel their stereotypes about IDers and reinforce their notion that ID = nonsense. Open-minded people would not be playing these games.