What If Intelligent Design Were True- Then What?

-
Neil Rickert asks- what if ID were true, then what?

Well Neil, we would be investigating biology in that light. And that means we wouldn't infer all mutations were random/ chance events- or as Dawkins said, we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology.

Ya see Neil, reality demonstrates that it matters to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by design or by nature operating freely. Artifacts are examined differently than natural formations. Murders are investigated differently than natural deaths. It matters, Neil. And it changes the whole investigation.

ID being true would mean we would be looking for software that controls the hardware, ie it would mean there is more to life than what we can see under the microscope.

It would also mean that there is a purpose, ie meaning to our lives- a real purpose. And it would also mean that we know what to look for to find other civilizations.

So the bottom line is ID would be a complete game changer.

UPDATE-

Neil Rickert "answers"

Well, no, knowing that ID were true would not change the evidence that the mutations are random.
 

LoL! In the first place there isn't any evidence that all mutations are random, ie chance/ happenstance events. And given ID then we would infer most are the product of design- as in organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. Meaning chance has very little to do with it. Then we would look for what is directing the mutations to occur.

Neil continues:

I already assume that there is more to life than we see under the microscope. And there probably isn’t any hidden software.
 

The evidence says there is software. What do you think drives the ribosome, which is a genetic compiler? What set the genetic code? Did it just happen? Do you think if you just put all of a cell's components together that they would work? Then why doesn't a fully artificial ribosome work? HINT- It is lacking software

Neil, on finding habitable planets:

Why don’t all of those brilliant ID scientists start using that knowledge right now?
 

They already told us what to look for. And it appears that the "mainstream" is starting to catch on.

So now Neil upset that he has been thoroughly dismanteled, whines:

Well, maybe we would be able to infer that the Intelligent Designer is a doufus.
 

Was that supposed to be a refutation? And what does that say of you seeing that you couldn't design anything like this?