You: A very banal metaphysical point, having nothing to do with the validity of ID.
But we're not talking about ID at this very moment, nor have we for the past several posts. We were speaking of reason and logic, logos.
Somehow, CG, I don't think you have a problem with my description of logos as "non-phenomenal," "non-random," and "immaterial." But perhaps the "transcendent" claim is a stumbling block.
What is meant by the term? For openers, it's the antonym (though I prefer the term "complementarity," in Niels Bohr's sense) of immanent. Which sheds a whole lot of light on the problem -- NOT!
Anyone can go look up those two terms in any good dictionary. But what do they mean? This you have to figure out for yourself.
My proposal would be as follows: Immanence pertains to things that arise in, exist through, and ultimately perish in and from 4-dimensional reality: 3 of space and 1 of time. This is the "physical" world.
Transcendence is that which is not confined within the "4D block" of x, y, z + t.
If that sounds farfetched, or "New-Ager," just consider this: The thought you have in your mind right now is nonphenomenal, non-random, immaterial -- and transcendent: Because what you do with this thought is not determined by the phenomenal, random, or material.
Reason and free will are transcendent. Human liberty is transcendent. So is human creativity. So is logic, reason, science -- all human beings have a "transcendent extension," as the philosopher might put it. Something that is not predetermined by nor subject to the physical laws as such -- for the simple reason that it is not "physical," "random," or "material."
Julian Huxley, however, famously could not resist blowing a nasty raspberry at this sublime understanding: He referred to what I'm talking about here as "the ghost in the machine."
Personally, I take that as an insult to human being.
Thanks for writing, CarolinaGuitarman -- you're a good conversationalist.