Being intelligible is a specific property? We know how smoke happens, but the smoke is subject to chaotic, unordered conditions.
Speaking of lightning, science still cannot predict where it will strike.
True, but thanks to materialistic science we know it's not from angry gods, and we can to some extent influence where it will strike in an area.
Intelligent design is not the antithesis of evolution.
Intelligent Design is evolution, only saying God did it instead of it happening naturally.
What part of arbitrary and subjective do you not understand?
Science works under rules, and you can call it arbitrary if you want, but those rules have done well for us. Natural science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural. Religion does belong in another branch of science though -- the social sciences, as religion is a factor in human interaction.
However, there are many historical cases where what was considered supernatural was finally able to be measured and verified, thus becoming in our view natural. So keep working at ID, and if you ever succeed in directly detecting and verifying the "designer," (not just the opinion "it looks designed to me" or "I know in my heart God is real") you may find greater acceptance as science.
You have to -- oh my gosh, what a concept -- compete on the scientific merits of your case instead of acting like a liberal trying to get your views through the back door.
No. It is only the appearance of chaos. Smoke behaves in a manner as designed, under laws that have been established to govern it.
. . . but thanks to materialistic science we know [lightening is] not from angry gods . . .
Really? How does science know this?
Intelligent Design is evolution, only saying God did it instead of it happening naturally.
I suppose if you must infer a deity by capitalizing the words "Intelligent Design" then it may be understood you are attributing intelligent design to God. You are correct in stating that evolution is no better explained by naturalism than it is by deism. But cases where organized matter performs specific functions are best understood as examples of intelligent design asopposed to some alternative. What alernative would you propose as the cause behind organized matter? Or would you just throw up your hands and say, "Nature did it!"
. . .and if you ever succeed in directly detecting and verifying the "designer" . . .
So all of sudden direct observation has become the benchmark for acceptable science. Looks like those concocted histories of billions of years just went out the window as "science."