I think I understand I.D.

OrdinaryClay,

It seems to me that intelligent design is the detection of something made apart from nature, or, even if it was made by nature, something intelligent aside from undirected random processes was behind it.

We use this in SETI where we search out signals with information to find hints of intelligent life out in space. We also use this in anthropology when we find ancient stones that appear to have been carved or painted on. We immediately recognize the design in that object. The same inferences of design can also be applied to the observations we have of the universe and of biological systems. We observe information and order that may be interpretted as having an intelligent source. This is what intelligent design is after, using our observations to detect whether or not a natural system has an intelligent source behind it's existence.

How am I doing so far?

It also must be pointed out that intelligent design doesn't need to specify a specific intelligent designer, because that is not the goal. Nor does I.D. need to provide a specific mechanism that this alleged intelligent designer used. It's only function is to look for signs of an intelligent source, and this has proven to be useful in fields such as anthropology, and is currently used in SETI.

Am I still doing ok with my description?

If there's more to it, let me know (without referring me to a book). I'd like to know I understand before I continue with my criticisms.

Since you addressed me personally I thought I would say ... I'll be offline for a few weeks. I'll respond at a later date. God Bless!

As a general description you are correct. Of course design does not always jump out at us. We don't always know it when we see it, and there is obviously more detail in how to detect it. This is why they call it a design inference.