"If someone wants to seriously suggest intelligence as a factor, and not just individual organism intelligence leading to selective survival advantages, then they have to offer a hypothesis as to how this works and a method to consult experience, known as experimental design."

Hey, I'm all for "burden of proof" and stuff, but what you are suggesting here is an unfair disadvantage to "ID". After all, science doesn't claim to know the means by which each jump is made in evolutionary progression, nor the impetus that caused each jump, yet it accepts as "fact" those jumps. There is just as strongly argued a case for "monsters" as there is for progressive adaptation -- maybe more. And that's not the only ambiguity even if you accept evolution as truth.

It's a goose and gander thingy. What's fair for one, y'know...