[AntiGuv]

I have no problem with your caveat that ID is not "closed" to future discoveries. Any one hypothesis will nonetheless specify a given feature or set of features. I excluded "/death" because it is redundant. Everything is a feature of life v non-life. I excluded "in nature" because it is irrelevant, and the broader definition won't be an impediment for our purposes.

So, once again, is this our definition:

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.

If your answer is "Yes" then we can proceed.

[Alamo-Girl]

That'll be fine then! I have to take care of a few errands now, but please post forward and I'll get back as soon as possible. Thanks.

[AndrewC]

Just so stories about undirected processes can explain anything, just not plausibly

[HiTech RedNeck]

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

I would insert "at least some" before the "given" to avoid the inadvertent creation of a strawman related to the finitude of any inquiry carried out by the finite agent, man. Some supersets of Intelligent Design (e.g. theism) would put "all" there. But that question is not in scope.