Why is intelligent design not a fact

Although Intelligent design obviously implies an intelligent designer, the theory is not called the intelligent designer theory.

Now the fact is that biological organisms are designs. It is also a fact that they are very clever designs despite the fact that some guy on the Internet doesn't know what the appendix does. The fact is that if someone just copied a simple design from an organism he would be considered a genius.

So whether you think an intelligent design needs an intelligent designer or not the fact still remains that life forms are intelligent designs.

If not why not?

It's not a fact because IDers' claims are scientifically untestable! An intelligent designer has not been empirically observed in nature; it is not part of methodological naturalism.

Intelligent design is thinly veiled creationism. Proponents of this theory contend that complex physical structures, such as the human eye, must be the result of an intelligent designer or cause. Similarly, a watch has a complex set of structural components, so this must mean it has a designer. This is referred to as the irreducible complexity argument.

I suggest you research more about "emergent properties" and how they can give the false impression of being intelligently designed.

EDIT: A question for you now. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the ubiquitous structural complexity that surrounds us, is it equally valid to suggest that the intelligent designer must also be a complex entity which requires an explanation?

Invoking a supernatural cause at the limits of one's knowledge puts a halt to scientific inquiry.

The reason that Intelligent design is not a fact is because no one has proven that it is. In order for something to be considered a fact, you need to demonstrate that it is through some sort of test or experiment, and the results have to be reproducible, or in other words it has to work every time. Sure you have some precarious evidence that suggest your "theory" may be true, but when it all boils down there really isn't any hard evidence to prove your claim. As for biological organisms being designs, well that's just wrong to claim fact there, first of all calling them designs implies that they were created by something, which automatically swings the argument in your favor. I'll have none of that fallacious thinking thank you. Second of all if you've done your homework in biology class you should know that change over time (yes "evolution" I know) is a fact we can demonstrate this by using bacteria and antibiotics. If you introduce an antibiotic into an environment with bacteria they will die, but there is a chance that one of those bacteria will develop a mutation which could be useful for resisting the antibiotic allowing it to survive. since bacteria reproduce so quickly that one special bacteria makes a bunch of new ones with the same resistance to the antibiotic. you now have a new organism similar to the last but different in that it can resist the antibiotic. Now of course this does't seem to clever of an improvement when you look at a human being, but you have to remember that this process has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. There's your reason