Intelligent design is not defined by "big proponents." Neither are thiungs unknown or unkowable necessarily supernatural.
Au contraire my friend... when I say big proponents I am talking about the founders of the ID theory? Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, William Dembsky. These guys have been writing articles and have been funded (their Discovery Institute), right? These are your founding fathers of ID theory. Why Meyer takes a lot of credit in the article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
According to most reports, ID is a "faith-based" alternative to evolution based solely on religion. But is this accurate? As one of the architects of the theory, I know it isn't.
Seems he disagrees with you.
ID is a simple concept involving the organization of matter for specific functions. It is not an inherently "supernatural" concept. If anything it is most natural, because whatever science has to investigate happens to consist of organized matter that performs specific functions. Hence it is quite possible that intelligent design is behind everything science has to investigate.
And you accuse me of being philosophical my friend. Can you tell me what other areas of science has promoted an "unknown, unseen intelligence" as the driving force? Pele the volcano God of Hawaii matches that criteria and yet, he is a supernatural being is he not (or is he real?) You tell me.
Once we understand a phenomenon, it suddenly goes from "supernatural" to "natural"
Maybe to a caveman but not to a scientist, that is the problem. When did science ever label anything it could not explain as "supernatural"?
And like I said before, it isn't philosophical to demand evidence for a theory is it? I mean... if you were going to convict someone of a crime, would you not demand evidence or are "unknown, unseen" identities good enough?
Sorry you hear your conscience bothers you for being a philosopher, but that is essentially what you are arguing here. You have no empirical tests to establish or confute the idea of intelligent design. You can declare it to be "unscientific," but not on a scientific basis.
I do not hear the proponents of ID saying it is an essentially "supernatural" concept. If they are, they are wrong. Intelligent design is commonplace and extends well beyond human endeavors. This Meyer guy seems to say as well it is inaccurate to describe ID as predominently "faith-based" or religious. So he happens to agree with me, not you.
And no, it is not a point of philosophy to ask for evidence in support of a theory. It is part and parcel of science. Organized matter performing specific functions is decent evidence for intelligent design, but not conclusive. The intelligible universe is replete with examples of the same, so it is not necessarily a supernatural, supersitious, or religious point of view to generally understand an intelligible universe to be a product of intelligent design; no more so than generally assuming each book or play has an author.