Replies

No, ID is NOT a way of looking at the universe. It is a claim about how the universe came to be as it is.

Even when one looks at an automobile and assumes all automobiles are intelligently designed, he does not make claims about it origins, who designed it, why it was designed the way it was, etc. To observe entities that are intelligible, quantifiable, objective etc. is not necessrily to make claims about its origins.

If your designer can do anything and everything . . .

As I said, the potentials do not define the designer. Potentials do not necessitate actions. Just because Rembrandt could do a painting like Pollack does not mean Rembrandt must refrain from emulating Pollack to show himself Rembrandt. Besides, omnipotence is not a qualification for intelligent design.

"Even when one looks at an automobile and assumes all automobiles are intelligently designed, he does not make claims about it origins, who designed it, why it was designed the way it was, etc."

If you are claiming it was intelligently designed, you are by definition making a claim about its origins.

"To observe entities that are intelligible, quantifiable, objective etc. is not necessrily to make claims about its origins."

And saying such entities exist is not to make a claim about ID.

"As I said, the potentials do not define the designer. Potentials do not necessitate actions. Just because Rembrandt could do a painting like Pollack does not mean Rembrandt must refrain from emulating Pollack to show himself Rembrandt. Besides, omnipotence is not a qualification for intelligent design."

You have already said that the designer could do anything if it wished, including making matter that is unorganized and obeyed no predictive laws.

Omnipotence IS a qualification for the designer of the universe. That is the designer that is being questioned, not whether or not people can design things.