[Gumlegs]

Since you have not properly expressed my idea I'll have to agree there is no evidence for your idea of my idea other than your idea.

Incoherent as ever.

Intelligence in one place does not "demonstrate" intelligence everyplace else.

But there is a decent amount of evidence that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, and that intelligence tends to support that kind of activity.

The incoherence continues. Sometimes intelligence doesn't support "that kind of activity," which may or may not be what you mean, but it's hard to know what you're driving at. Is the activity you're referring to the "behaves" in your sentence?

There is also decent evidence that everything known to man can be mathematically embraced; that there are constants.

She held me in her mathematical embrace. When I tried to balance our equation, she caught me trying to divide by zero. She told me to take a hike. Another constant.

Are you the Fester Chugabrew who's been using his militant ignorance to bludgeon tortoise about mathematical theory?

This, too, may be understood as evidence of intelligent design, without with no thing would be intelligible in the first place.

You understand everything as evidence of intelligent design, which, indeed is why ID is worthless as a scientific theory. And you haven't shown how my summation of your notion is in any way incorrect, to the surprise of no one whatever.

[tortoise]

Incoherent as ever.

Yes, what you said.

(lurk mode engaged for real now)

[Fester Chugabrew]

You understand everything as evidence of intelligent design, which, indeed is why ID is worthless as a scientific theory.

So then how scientifically strong is the theory of those who understand everything to be evidence of evolution? Besides, there may be some unorganized matter out there that does not behave according to predictable laws, so it is not as if my scientific model is unfalsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified to date. The probabilities are in its favor.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Things tend to be "incoherent" when one lacks the capacity for basic comprehension.

I don't care how "eloquent" or "esoteric" a mathematical system is. If it supports the notion it is somewhat difficult to tell whether statues arise from applied intelligence (i.e. reason, information, organization, etc.) or not, then it is a mathematical system good for puffing up the ego and exercising the brain in futility, but of little consequence for a civilization that tends to operate with definitions held by common convention.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Once upon a time (1/t) pretty little Polly Nomial ...

Not to mention that smooth operator, Curly Pi.