Replies

You've introduced more to the argument than is necessary. You've leapt to the conclusion that an intelligent designer must, by definition, be supernatural. This is made clear by the introduction of capital letters "I" and "D" as if some deity is necessary for intelligent design to take place.

Oh, please. I capitalize the "P" in Pennsylvania. Doesn't mean I think the Keystone State is a god.

My question concerns the idea of intelligent design itself, and why it should be considered a supernatural phenomenon. Why cannot nature engage in intelligent design?

Are you talking about the "theory" of intelligent design, or are you using it as a pretend code-word, one that which only you know the real meaning?

-Can an intelligence design something? Sure.
-Is everything that appears designed actually designed by an intelligence? No.
-Can we tell when something is designed by an intelligence and when it is not? No. Not with certainty, and only in circumstances where we have antecedent knowledge. When dealing with areas without antecedent knowledge, we have an insurmountable false positive problem.

Are we done?

Oh, please. I capitalize the "P" in Pennsylvania. Doesn't mean I think the Keystone State is a god.

Of course not. It's when you capitalize "Intelligent Deseigner" that you give away a theistic bent. You yourself have said that intelligent design by definition should be considered "supernatural." I maintain there is nothing inherently supernatural about either organized matter or intelligent design. There are attributes of human existence that science has yet to explore, yet science does not dismiss intelligent design out of hand as "supernatural" just because humans have inexplicable attributes, or may be absent from a humanly-designed artifact or implement.