[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is both."

No, ID is NOT a way of looking at the universe. It is a claim about how the universe came to be as it is.

"To the extent it evaluates objective evidence, including organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, it is scientific."

There is no extent it evaluates objective evidence.

"The designer is not defined or made evident by possibilities and potentials but by what is actually designed, built, and set into motion. The presence of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws would be uncharacteristic of an intelligent designer, and thus serve to undermine its presence or activity."

Uncharacteristic? Says who? If your designer can anything and everything, then nothing that can be found is negative evidence for their existence.

"Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything."

You have in the past said that the designer could do anything.

"Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old."

One specimen would rightly be skeptically received. A few, capable of independent verification of dates, would be devastating to evolution. The spark plug you reference, btw, was not in rock that could be dated with the available info. The *dating* was a joke.

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, ID is NOT a way of looking at the universe. It is a claim about how the universe came to be as it is.

Even when one looks at an automobile and assumes all automobiles are intelligently designed, he does not make claims about it origins, who designed it, why it was designed the way it was, etc. To observe entities that are intelligible, quantifiable, objective etc. is not necessrily to make claims about its origins.

If your designer can do anything and everything . . .

As I said, the potentials do not define the designer. Potentials do not necessitate actions. Just because Rembrandt could do a painting like Pollack does not mean Rembrandt must refrain from emulating Pollack to show himself Rembrandt. Besides, omnipotence is not a qualification for intelligent design.