Why-y-y was Albert Einstein not fully satisfied with the state of 1900s physics, persisting, AFAICS, through the rest of his life?

Frank:"Sorry, but I don't want dinner to get cold."

Clearly, then, the temperature of your quiche is more important to you than the stunning possibilities of open-ended scientific inquiry. No absent-minded dreamy preoccupied-with-dreams professor, you.

Frank:" You'll need to be more specific. Just because it is so complex that you don't get it, doesn't mean that GOD did it."

We are free to specify the credentials of our various "G-Ds", yes? In any case, the "definition" of "G-D" is not uniformly outlined, or even AFAICS, entirely definable.

Frank:"Which observations are explained better by ID than by natural processes? "

(Chuckle) All of the things that are not yet observable, and observations that are not yet fully described? You seem to think that just because something is invisible, it categorically doesn't exist at all.

Frank:"If all ID turns out to be is a place-holder until we find something better, then it really isn't anything at all. "

To your credit, you DID say "if".

Frank:"The same thing as will happen to your Designer unless you can find a much better reason to predict His behavior and a way to get him on film."

Perhaps you are over-reaching. On film? Second guess the designer? Logically, feeble human capacities may not ever reach "that" far. Compare: A fairly automatic "robot" lunar lander/diamond miner ever figuring out "why" it is there.

The current science populariz-ating literature does seem to allow a lot of what you seem to be disposed to disparage/attack. Are you aware of the possibility that YOU are in the non-exploring, not thought-experimenting tenured minority?

Maybe your "science" is the fantasy, and *your* entire universe is merely just comparable to an old celluloid reel of film in a Hollywood archive?