Thanks, but I prefer to lurk this one out, still for the reasons I gave back in post 1894. Your current definition of ID -- which isn't binding on the Discovery Institute even if I did like it -- fails to satisfy me because, inter alia, it isn't restricted to things that are "otherwise inexplicable" and it states that things "are explained" by ID, rather than that they "may be explained" by ID. So as it stands, your version of ID is less of a scientific hypothesis and more of a declaration of dogma. It's mysticism -- a wishy-washy version that won't come out of the closet and admit that it's creationism.
So, it would seem that PatrickHenry and Alamo-Girl may have irreconcilable differences, with a very poor mediator between them (my mediation skills usually amount to telling someone to f*** off!) Nonetheless, once Alamo-Girl replies then those items you raise could very well get reopened, because if we are to narrow the definition in any way then it remains to be determined to what degree it is to be narrowed. I am patient here; let's build us a 7000 post thread! =)