The definition is vague, and since we’re opposed on this issue, I don’t expect you to agree with me that how I defined it is the same as how they defined it.
Nevertheless, no matter how vague the wording is, the English language is not so imprecise as to allow the Discovery Institute to hide the creationism inherent in intelligent design.
They talk about an “intelligent cause” and “undirected” processes. What is this mysterious “intelligent cause?” Can it be observed and tested in the laboratory? Of course not, hence, it’s no surprise that even Dr. Michael Behe admitted that “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. Ff the theory disagrees that “undirected” causes alone are sufficient, then it must espouse “directed” causes (read: divine intervention).
You ask me to provide “a reference showing that our origin is best explained by natural processes - observable and testable, according to your own requirements for ID.” Please check out Biology by Campbell and Reece.
I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.
"You ask me to provide “a reference showing that our origin is best explained by natural processes - observable and testable, according to your own requirements for ID.” Please check out Biology by Campbell and Reece."
The requested document does not exist on this server.