@T_aquaticus
Thanks for your comments. You ask insightful questions. I suppose the ID proponents you are thinking of are trained as scientists. The only way to do experiments is to expect regular, non-guided processes. Almost by definition, some process that is guided falls outside of expectations. We don’t expected to see guidance in our experiments because a) it’s very rare and b) it’s not required. Guidance, when it happens, may be so rare as to be below the level of our detection. All we have is the historical signal.
When we do our measurements, we are measuring the normal unguided processes. We can measure their rates at the present time, and compare them to historical rates. Doug Axe, myself, Mike Behe, Kirk Dursten–we are measuring the rarity of events under natural conditions. That allows us to conclude if we see things happening that should be significantly less rare, guidance is a possibility. So then, orphan genes, or I should say, de novo genes–if it proves very difficult to get de novo function by experiment (protein function in the sense I have been discussing) then we are justified in saying they may be de novo creations. Unless another more likely explanation is found.
This is my take on it.