Tuppence posted details on experiments using e coli, lightspeed is a defined constant that is not supported by the observed data derived from experimentation.
Now, since you cannot disprove Russell's teapot based on his criteria, anyone can use the same criteria to opine that ID is in fact based in science and supported in science, and is the same criteria used to teach evolutionary biology. Can you show me via properly conducted experimentation that a fish can evolve to a reptile can evolve to a primate can evolve to homo sapien? The answer is no, or evolutionists would have won this debate long ago. "Mathematical relation" is the basis for probability, which is a scientific concept. The "probability" of another planet sustaining life, that evolutionary biology is true, and etc. is so small as to be mathematically impossible.