It's not entirely clear since advocates of "intelligent design" steadfastly refuse to say or postulate anything about how (or when, or where, or by what/whom) acts of "design" are actually implemented. But they do assert (baldly) that acts of design are non-natural. IOW they are "inferred" when we can eliminate (don't ask me how) "natural causes".
Yeah, I know it's a mess, and intentionally shielding your mechanism from scrutiny is completely unscientific... But don't complain to me. This is what ID'ers say that ID is.
When we eliminate "natural causes," the average lifespan will increase.
the trouble is that I have seen computer programs that "evolve" virtual creatures whose body plans and primitive locomotion looks just like that of the the creatures from the cambrian explosion.
That is while there is random selection there is not random results.
It just looks like the line about how many are called but few are chosen. Why? because few actually meet the criteria called for.
I'm not saying this particularly means anything.
But random selection seems to presume a disorder at bottom of things that breaks against the evidence of the eyes as severely as any promulgation that there is an ultimate invisible order.
"It's not entirely clear since advocates of "intelligent design" steadfastly refuse to say or postulate anything about how (or when, or where, or by what/whom) acts of "design" are actually implemented."
Do you think that thermometers should postulate anything about how, when, where or by what/whom acts of heat are actually implemented? If not, then why should design detection be different?