You posted what they currently claim their ideas to be. Since I'm asserting that they're changing the way they describe ID to give it more widespread appeal, I'm not surprised that what's on their website now supports that.
In fact the I.D. folks go to some lengths to avoid a designer let alone one that fiddles around in creation every so often.
Well yes, they do. That's part of the strategy. But you can't have design without a designer, even if you don't want to say who it is. I have never heard an argument for ID that claims the intelligence in the design arose naturally--it always involves some intelligent agent standing outside of nature. (But shhh, we don't want to talk about that.)
It's inescapable, though. If the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and therefore indicative of design, then that means the first bacterium that had one was either created out of nothing, or was an existing bacterium that had the flagellum installed as a functioning system. Unless you argue that nothing is older than bacteria, then you have a designer who fiddles. (And, of course, some have claimed the eye is irreducibly complex, which means you have a designer who's fiddling as late as the development of eyes.)
What general characteristics are unique to intelligently designed things so that we can separate them from all other things?
Your wording exemplifies what I mean. You want to find some things that are intelligently designed as distinct from other things that aren't. That means the designer has a hand in some things and left others alone. Hence, a designer who fiddles.
What general characteristics are unique to intelligently designed things so that we can separate them from all other things? (This is what I asked and that is what I meant. It seems to be a question that is like garlic to Dracula).
“Your wording exemplifies what I mean. You want to find some things that are intelligently designed as distinct from other things that aren’t. That means the designer has a hand in some things and left others alone. Hence, a designer who fiddles.”
No, I asked for MEANS not ends.
Then by your reasoning if I intelligently designed a clay pot and chose not to fire or paint it I’d be fiddling with it? Or if I later fired and painted what I intelligently designed I would be “fiddling” with it?
Yeah, the I.D. folks do tiptoe past the “designer” like evolutionists do with the origin of life, using the same sort of reasonings. But if you assert that the I.D. folks have changed the way they describe I.D. you didn’t show any citation to demonstrate it.
Anything else on the question I asked concerning by what means I could tell if a piece of fired clay I found was intelligently designed or not?