[AntiGuv]

Actually, lemme backtrack. For our purposes I think your definition as modified below is adequate:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Is that now our definition moving forward?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your posts!

mine: Intelligent Design: An hypothesis wherein certain features of life v non-life/death in nature is best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

yours: Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You’ve substituted “given” for “certain”. The word “given” indicates something specified in advance whereas “certain” is something definite but not specified. The intelligent design hypothesis is not “closed” to future discoveries. We can continue with that understanding or alternatively, go back to the word "certain".

Also, you’ve dropped the “/death in nature”. Perhaps you are just being economical with the words, but the “/death in nature” was to keep the discussion from drifting into artificial intelligence as well as setting the boundary for the next most likely "issue" in this definition of ID: what is life v. non-life/death in nature.

All of this nit-picking will help define what is "on" the table v what is not for the Lurkers who may be following the discussion.