i have already posted this :
And as others have pointed out, it is badly flawed. Indeed, I'll point out its most fatal flaws myself, in this post.
Basic Intelligent Design:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
This 'observation' doesn't define "complex-specified information" in any meaningful or useful manner. It states that complexity means that something's unlikely to happen, which is a singularly useless definition. The chances of winning the jackpot in a Powerball drawing are approximately 174 million to one; does that make a Powerball drawing complex? It also does not give us any idea of how high the odds need to be in order to make it 'unlikely'. Furthermore, it then states that specified means it conforms to a pattern, which isn't much better. A snowflake, a sand dune, a wave, soap bubbles, and naturally-occurring crystal formations all conform to patterns. Are they specified?
On top of that, it only gives us examples of things that, presumably, have high "CSI", such as language and machines. What it does not give us are examples of things that do not have high "CSI", therefore we have no effective way to decide what doesn't have high "CSI". The definition of high "CSI" is purely arbitrary, as well; it does not tell us how much "CSI" exists in language and machines, as opposed to other things, therefore we cannot generalize it to assign "CSI" values to various things. These problems effectively make the whole concept of "CSI" unfalsifiable, because it can be redefined according to the whim of the person defining it.
What that means is that the other three things you listed (hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion) are completely worthless, because they rest on a premise that cannot (currently) be falsified. Because the scientific method relies on the concept of falsification, you cannot run the concept of intelligent design (as written here) through the scientific method.
How do you know ?
The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.
That is not a affirmation specifically in regard of natural systems, but a general preposition.
How do I know? Because your statement, "the more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design", does not actually tell us anything useful. It simply asserts that as complexity increases, the probability of design increases. It does not give any way to determine an actual relationship between complexity and design, or to determine if something is a false positive (complex things that are not designed) or false negative (simple things that are designed). The only thing it allows is for you to arbitrarily declare that complex things are designed without doing any work to prove it.
That's why I called it begging the question. You aren't actually determining whether it is designed or not. You're just assuming that it was.