And, if we are to reopen the debate on how to more narrowly define the type of features that "intelligent design" contemplates, we will need to entice PatrickHenry back into the discussion, because the primary reason I dismissed the formulation that PH proposed was because it was narrower than 'everything'..
Thanks, but I prefer to lurk this one out, still for the reasons I gave back in post 1894. Your current definition of ID -- which isn't binding on the Discovery Institute even if I did like it -- fails to satisfy me because, inter alia, it isn't restricted to things that are "otherwise inexplicable" and it states that things "are explained" by ID, rather than that they "may be explained" by ID. So as it stands, your version of ID is less of a scientific hypothesis and more of a declaration of dogma. It's mysticism -- a wishy-washy version that won't come out of the closet and admit that it's creationism.