Let me add another brief comment.
As it is presented by Dembski, the answer, "intelligent design" is nothing
more than the covering label for whatever is left after the explanations,
"it is the product of a regularity" and "it is the product of chance" have
been eliminated from serious consideration as answers to the question, What
was the cause for event E?
What I keep asking the proponents of ID to tell me is, What does it mean to
be "intelligently designed"? I have yet to receive a straightforward
answer. Why do I ask?
Suppose that someone claimed to have empirical evidence that organism X or
biotic subsystem Y had been "gzorply muffnordled"? I would expect that your
first question would be, What does it mean to be "gzorply muffnordled"? And
you would surely expect the person who made the claim to have a ready
answer.
Now, the proponents of ID claim to have empirical evidence that certain
organisms and/or botic subsystems have been "intelligently designed." So,
folks, what does it mean "to be ntelligently designed"?
Please begin the answer with the words, "To be intelligently designed is to
be....." Furthermore, I would expect that the answer would make clear
reference to some particulr type action performed by an agent, as well as a
clear reference to the type of agent that could have done the action.
Howard Van Till