[betty boop]

...is an answer to the question as to how individuals such as betty and Alamo-Girl, who I clearly recognize are not Nominalists, could attach themselves to a blatantly Nominalist argument such as that proposed by Intelligent Design. I regard this as an intellectual inconsistency, since they clearly believe in universal truths.

Hello StJacques, and welcome back!

Forgive me, but I'm confused by your post. I do not conflate a "Nominalist" argument with an hypothesis or a conjecture. ID at this point in its development is following a conjecture, and it seems a quite reasonable one to me from an empirical standpoint: that there is a "designed quality" or a kind of "patterning" built into the world, which is a conclusion that can be reached simply by observing the world. ID simply wants to find out how to account for this. It has not produced any kind of a "final" theory. In fact, I think it may be still trying to refine its methods; it is clearly early in its developmental process. What it has done thus far is to open up the conceptual space in which science can proceed to do its work.

If it were at a stage in its research where it proposed a full-blown theory, absent experimental tests, then you might have a point. But it hasn't done that, and I don't expect it will any time soon.

[StJacques]

". . . ID at this point in its development is following a conjecture, and it seems a quite reasonable one to me from an empirical standpoint: that there is a "designed quality" or a kind of "patterning" built into the world, which is a conclusion that can be reached simply by observing the world. . . ."

It is reasonable to use empirical observation and conclude that explaining the origins of biological complexity are problematic. It is not empirically-verifiable to claim that because that explanation has not yet been produced that it implies Intelligent Design. And I can accept the term "patterning" but not "designed quality" which imply two different concepts from my point of view.