[PatrickHenry]

To give you even more to chew on, I have a few further thoughts. Here's what I left you with in post 1,637:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

I propose the following additional revisions:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: A hypothesis that c Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable are may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Cleaned up, it looks like this:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

The reason for substituting "may be" rather than "are" is that as finally stated, the hypothesis suggests the possibility of testing, rather than just declaring a conclusion. It's much more scientific now.

[Alamo-Girl]

I’m baaack! Jeepers, y’all have been busy…

The original definition from the discover.org website:

Intelligent Design holds that ” certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

My last definition (#1546):

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.

The latest from AntiGuv and PatrickHenry:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection. .

AndrewC, your objection at 1558 is very important. You said:

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

What has been omitted in our redefinitions is the word “best”. In other words, many explanations may be offered but all explanations are not equally plausible. The intelligent design hypothesis claims the “best” explanation for certain features.

HiTechRedNeck, I am assured that the use of the word “given” as a substitute for “certain” does not limit the intelligent design hypothesis to current knowledge and conversely would require mention of at least some for any particular assertion of the intelligent design hypothesis.

PatrickHenry and AntiGuv, I’m going to fast forward through your discussion to your last suggested rewording:

The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection. .

I like the word “certain” but object to the phrase “biological features or processes” because we need to make a “cut” between life and non-life/death.

Considerations such as form, geometry, mathematical structures, semiosis, autonomy, successful communication, complexity and intelligence are within the domain of intelligent design investigation – and the reference to “biological features or processes” might inadvertently limit the debate to bio/chemistry.

The omission of the word “best” in this discussion in combination with the phrase “that are otherwise inexplicable” puts the bar above that which is stated by the fellows at discovery.org. IOW, they are not claiming that there are not other explanations, but that the best explanation is by an intelligent cause. I think your last wording was getting much closer, PatrickHenry!

I suggest amending and revising your last definition as follows:

Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain features of life v non-life may be best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process.

I omitted my original “/death in nature” and “such as natural selection” as unnecessary verbiage.

[VadeRetro]

The reason for substituting "may be" rather than "are" is that as finally stated, the hypothesis suggests the possibility of testing, rather than just declaring a conclusion. It's much more scientific now.

It's also obvious now how little intellectual content there is behind all the ballyhoo for ID.