Therefore, the proper step would be to modify our definition as follows:
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.
Your formulation "life v non-life/death in nature" would be a subset of actuality. Do you have an objection to this final revision?
Your formulation "life v non-life/death in nature" would be a subset of actuality. Do you have an objection to this final revision?
Kant would have us understand actuality as "existence in some determinate time" but his definition of time is not up-to-date with geometric physics (i.e. 3 spatial dimensions evolving over time v time as a dimension) and thus would beg the question.
It also leaves the door open for modal logic which I doubt you would want.
The term "reality" might substitute, but the problem of definition remains. In a prior survey here on Free Republic, we compiled these different views of what reality "is":
To an autonomist "reality" is all that is, the way it is
To an objectivist "reality" is that which exists
To a mystic "reality" may include thought as substantive force and hence, a part of "reality"
To Plato "reality" includes constructs such as redness, chairness, numbers, geometry and pi
To Aristotle these constructs are not part of "reality" but merely language
To some physicists, "reality" is the illusion of quantum mechanics
To Christians "reality" is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
I have to go help with construction again this afternoon, but have a few minutes more now and will be back later on.