That is a mistake on their part. Intelligent design is a natural occurrence. If it were not, we would call it a miracle every time someone (i.e. an intelligent designer) writes a word or sentence.
How can it be a mistake on their part? They are the ones who proposed the "theory." However, the thing is, I believe you are commiting a non-sequitur. Whereas humans are naturalistic intelligent designers, the Intelligent Designer as outlined in the ID "theory" is by definition non-naturalistic and untestable. If the ID community can find a way to test for a naturalistic Intelligent Designer, then more power to them.
Note: I'm not being sarcastic when I put "theory" in quotes. The thing is, in science, nothing starts off as a theory. You have to form hypotheses explaining a range of related data and if it is confirmed enough and is very accurate, it will graduate to a theory. Nothing starts off as a theory
As I have already explained, the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Meyer, Demski, Behe, et al.) have already defined the Designer to be a non-natural intelligent agency.Um... so... the Intelligent Designer is a natural person. Like an alien. OK. So this alien being or beings created matter (which spontaneously organizes itself into configurations that do specific functions all the time - see for example, stars). But this alien being or beings aren't supernatural.That is a mistake on their part. Intelligent design is a natural occurrence. If it were not, we would call it a miracle every time someone (i.e. an intelligent designer) writes a word or sentence.
Allllllllllrighty then.