[CarolinaGuitarman]

" But that is not what I said. I said omnipotence is not a requirement for intelligent design."

We are not talking about human designers, we are talking about the designer of the universe. That is what the fuss is all about with ID. For the designer of the universe, omnipotence IS a requirement.

"The presence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of intelligent design. The absence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of unintelligent non-design."

And visa-versa. As you have already admitted.

"Now, if someone wants to come along and say in the name of science that organized matter, or intelligible phenomena, cannot reasonably be interpreted as evidence intelligent design, and say so without offering a viable alternative, I would say the case is very strong for that person to be an ideologue or philosopher, but not a scientist."

The alternative is one you have said is also viable, that organized matter is a result of unintelligent design. You said there is no way to make the choice between the two options without bringing in subjective elements. That's your stated position Fester.

[Fester Chugabrew]

For the designer of the universe, omnipotence IS a requirement.

How do you know? Couldn't there just be one tiny little smidgeon of a black hole over which the intelligent designer has no control; of which the intelligent designer has not the slightest awareness? Furthermore, how do you know the designer of the universe is not human?

. . . that organized matter is a result of unintelligent design.

I consider organized matter and nonintelligent (better word) design to be mutually exclusive entities. The two cannot co-exist, therefore I do not consider this to be a viable alternative. The point at which intelligent design ceases is the point at which science ceases.