[Alamo-Girl]

I’m baaack! Jeepers, y’all have been busy…

The original definition from the discover.org website:

Intelligent Design holds that ” certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

My last definition (#1546):

Intelligent Design: An hypothesis wherein certain features of life v non-life/death in nature is best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The latest from AntiGuv and PatrickHenry:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection. .

AndrewC, your objection at 1558 is very important. You said:

Just so stories about undirected processes can explain anything, just not plausibly

What has been omitted in our redefinitions is the word “best”. In other words, many explanations may be offered but all explanations are not equally plausible. The intelligent design hypothesis claims the “best” explanation for certain features.

HiTechRedNeck, I am assured that the use of the word “given” as a substitute for “certain” does not limit the intelligent design hypothesis to current knowledge and conversely would require mention of at least some for any particular assertion of the intelligent design hypothesis.

PatrickHenry and AntiGuv, I’m going to fast forward through your discussion to your last suggested rewording:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection. .

I like the word “certain” but object to the phrase “biological features or processes” because we need to make a “cut” between life and non-life/death.

Considerations such as form, geometry, mathematical structures, semiosis, autonomy, successful communication, complexity and intelligence are within the domain of intelligent design investigation – and the reference to “biological features or processes” might inadvertently limit the debate to bio/chemistry.

The omission of the word “best” in this discussion in combination with the phrase “that are otherwise inexplicable” puts the bar above that which is stated by the fellows at discovery.org. IOW, they are not claiming that there are not other explanations, but that the best explanation is by an intelligent cause. I think your last wording was getting much closer, PatrickHenry!

I suggest amending and revising your last definition as follows:

Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain features of life v non-life may be best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process.

I omitted my original “/death in nature” and “such as natural selection” as unnecessary verbiage.

[xzins]

I'm not trying to wrench up the defining, but have you all previously agreed to what is meant by "intelligent." If so, can you ping me to it? Thanks.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I perceive two visions here about what Science is expected to do. One surveys the scene at each point in its inquiry and tries to make the most likely judgment about what's the case (to date, it's that I won't win the Powerball, unless I get a friend on the ball drawing team), the other takes an 'ypothesis and drills down to the bitter end before starting up with another (keep buying those Powerball tickets, I have an unbustable budget, and we'll see if I ever win before I die).

[PatrickHenry]

The omission of the word “best” in this discussion in combination with the phrase “that are otherwise inexplicable” puts the bar above that which is stated by the fellows at discovery.org. IOW, they are not claiming that there are not other explanations, but that the best explanation is by an intelligent cause. I think your last wording was getting much closer, PatrickHenry!

My idea in using the expression "features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable" seems (at least to me) to cover the issue of "best." If there's no natural explanation, then the ID hypothesis is the only explanation that's left to explore.

If we do what the Discovery Institute does, and phrase it so that although there may be natural causes, the ID explanation is (somehow) judged to be "best," then we may as well amend all scientific theories to say: "... but to some, ID is preferable." I regard that as a giant step backwards.