Hold it guys, I think I can settle this, give me a few minutes to write …
… a few minutes later …
The trouble is more fundamental than induction, probability, cause and proof. It’s the very hypothesis of Design itself. Without a hypothesis as a basis there is no inference. Without some definition of Design or Designer there is nothing we can infer-to by any means.
The implied assumption of Intelligent Design is the Designer exists. Expressed mathematically, this is a Bayesian prior assumption “The Designer Exists” with probability =1.0." I have a post somewhere explaining how I arrive at that conclusion which I will search and link - I’m too lazy/busy to reproduce it.
The implications of such a prior are that all evidence is ignored and the conclusion favors Design, always. This is why arguments about ID always devolve into nonsensical conclusions and discussion, because the implicit assumption of ID is nonsensical. Given a false assumption we can conclude anything we like as a “true” statement.
Now to find that link …
One: From a discussion of the premises of Design arguments.
Two: A discussion of ID math.
Both versions say essentially the same thing.