Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Coito ergo sum]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seems that he also argues that since humans design things then humans were designed.

Nope. I merely draw the logical and rational inference that since humans are capable of designing organisms, and since this capability is the product of intelligence, that therefore intelligence elsewhere is logically capable of designing organisms, provided that it is at least as advanced as human intelligence. Thus, it is scientifically possible that humans were designed by intelligence, and no resort to supernatural forces or "God" is required to support that possibility as a scientific question to be resolved.

Anything wrong with this logical inference?

Yes. What you can state infer is that if there is life on Earth, and if there are other life sustaining planets, then life might exist elsewhere, and if life exists elsewhere it may be more, equally or less "intelligent" as humans, and if such life exists elsewhere they might, like us, engage in genetic engineering.

It doesn't logically follow that "intelligence elsewhere IS logically capable of designing organisms."

It is possible that humans were designed by other living creatures; however, that is not ID.

It's not so much your assertion that humans might have been genetically engineered, it's your insistence on renaming genetic engineering "ID." Genetic engineers don't run around making complexity and perfection arguments - they engage in scientific investigation. Big difference.

[Seth]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seems that he also argues that since humans design things then humans were designed.

Nope. I merely draw the logical and rational inference that since humans are capable of designing organisms, and since this capability is the product of intelligence, that therefore intelligence elsewhere is logically capable of designing organisms, provided that it is at least as advanced as human intelligence. Thus, it is scientifically possible that humans were designed by intelligence, and no resort to supernatural forces or "God" is required to support that possibility as a scientific question to be resolved.

Anything wrong with this logical inference?

Yes. What you can state infer is that if there is life on Earth, and if there are other life sustaining planets, then life might exist elsewhere, and if life exists elsewhere it may be more, equally or less "intelligent" as humans, and if such life exists elsewhere they might, like us, engage in genetic engineering.

It doesn't logically follow that "intelligence elsewhere IS logically capable of designing organisms."

Why not? We know that human intelligence can intelligently design living organisms. Therefore it is rational to conclude that intelligent life elsewhere that equals or exceeds our level of intelligence also has that capacity. Whether or not such an intelligence has done so is not relevant. The logical inference is that any sufficiently advanced intelligence could, if it chose to do so, follow the same pathways of investigation and experimentation that humans have, and reach the same results.

I did not say that any such intelligence did, or must, or can, I said it is "capable" of doing so.

It is possible that humans were designed by other living creatures; however, that is not ID.

It's not neo-Creationist Behe/Discovery Institute "ID," but it would absolutely be "intelligent design" of living organisms. Note the lack of capitalization involved. To say otherwise is to abuse language merely out of pique at the neo-Creationists.

It's not so much your assertion that humans might have been genetically engineered, it's your insistence on renaming genetic engineering "ID." Genetic engineers don't run around making complexity and perfection arguments - they engage in scientific investigation. Big difference.

They have intelligence. They design living organisms. They engage in the practice of intelligent design of living organisms. You are denying the use of the perfectly accurate term "intelligent design" only because you don't like what the Discovery Institute is doing, and you wish to divorce your beliefs from theirs. That's your option. You may refuse to use the term "intelligent design" in any context other than to refer to neo-Creationism in a disparaging manner.

But you're being irrational in doing so.

[GenesForLife]

Being a Biotechnology major, and as a result one who is extremely familiar with genetic engineering, I can tell you that the idea of genetic engineers intelligently designing living organisms is utter bollocks at this moment in time.

The thing that's been done closest to the organismal scale, if you will, is Craig Venter and co chemically synthesizing a genome identical to the genome of a naturally occurring organism.
Much of genetic engineering involves cutting and pasting using enzymes, and this doesn't mean you are intelligently designing organisms. Synthetic Biology involves synthesizing and pasting, but this isn't remotely close to the organismal level either.

Genetic engineers may intelligently modify genes and genomes for particular purposes, but none of this translates to anything tantamount to designing an organism.

Next.

[Coito ergo sum]

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seems that he also argues that since humans design things then humans were designed.

Nope. I merely draw the logical and rational inference that since humans are capable of designing organisms, and since this capability is the product of intelligence, that therefore intelligence elsewhere is logically capable of designing organisms, provided that it is at least as advanced as human intelligence. Thus, it is scientifically possible that humans were designed by intelligence, and no resort to supernatural forces or "God" is required to support that possibility as a scientific question to be resolved.

Anything wrong with this logical inference?

Yes. What you can state infer is that if there is life on Earth, and if there are other life sustaining planets, then life might exist elsewhere, and if life exists elsewhere it may be more, equally or less "intelligent" as humans, and if such life exists elsewhere they might, like us, engage in genetic engineering.

It doesn't logically follow that "intelligence elsewhere IS logically capable of designing organisms."

Why not?

Because it doesn't necessarily follow. It might be the case. That's all you can say. You can't say it "is" the case.

We know that human intelligence can intelligently design living organisms. Therefore it is rational to conclude that intelligent life elsewhere that equals or exceeds our level of intelligence also has that capacity.

It's logical to conclude that if life developed here on Earth, then if those same circumstances existed elsewhere it should develop there as well. It is also logical to conclude that there may be other circumstances that will allow for the development of life on Earth. It is also logical to infer from the POSSIBIILITY of life on other planets that such life might be less, more or equally intelligent. Yes. It is not, however, rational to infer that there is, in fact, such life. It is also possible, as far as we know, that despite the trillions of planets we believe are in the universe, Earth may well be unique. That is possible, too. We don't know.

Whether or not such an intelligence has done so is not relevant. The logical inference is that any sufficiently advanced intelligence could, if it chose to do so, follow the same pathways of investigation and experimentation that humans have, and reach the same results.

Sure, but it's not logical to infer that other intelligent beings do, in fact, exist. It's logical to infer that they might exist, but that as of the present time we do not have any evidence of it. None.

I did not say that any such intelligence did, or must, or can, I said it is "capable" of doing so.

It's not logical to infer that there are such beings. It's only logical to infer that it's possible that there are such beings.

If, of course, you ASSUME that such beings exist, then you can infer that they are capable of doing whatever their intelligence level and physiology allows them to do.

It is possible that humans were designed by other living creatures; however, that is not ID.

It's not neo-Creationist Behe/Discovery Institute "ID," but it would absolutely be "intelligent design" of living organisms. Note the lack of capitalization involved. To say otherwise is to abuse language merely out of pique at the neo-Creationists.

It's genetic engineering. You're the only one I've ever heard call it "intelligent design." That's some change in common English usage that you seem to be pushing for, for whatever reason you still haven't really made clear. I've never met anyone who even thinks it's valuable to call genetic engineering "intelligent design." It's a useless euphemism that can only serve to confuse. And, I still haven't heard what your reason is for wanting to change the name of genetic engineering to intelligent design.

I get what you are saying - you're saying duhhhh....we're intelligent....and we design things...therefore what we design is intelligently designed. So, good. We get it. But, it would only confuse things to go around saying that my house was "intelligently designed" and my car was "intelligently designed." It's useless, pointless and silly. The only reason we need the term intelligent design is to describe something OTHER THAN what humans (and possibly non-humans on other planets) make and create. Design is enough. Humans design automobiles and houses, they don't "intelligently design" them. So, we don't need the new term, except to describe the concept of "ID" which, as you know, is total bollocks. Such bollocks that only three kinds of people can really be proponents of it: (1) the stupid, (2) the uneducated/ignorant, or (3) those not in categories 1 and 2 who have an agenda.

It's not so much your assertion that humans might have been genetically engineered, it's your insistence on renaming genetic engineering "ID." Genetic engineers don't run around making complexity and perfection arguments - they engage in scientific investigation. Big difference.

They have intelligence. They design living organisms. They engage in the practice of intelligent design of living organisms. You are denying the use of the perfectly accurate term "intelligent design" only because you don't like what the Discovery Institute is doing, and you wish to divorce your beliefs from theirs. That's your option. You may refuse to use the term "intelligent design" in any context other than to refer to neo-Creationism in a disparaging manner.

But you're being irrational in doing so.

No, I'm using the English language correctly. When you have perfectly good, specific terms or words for something, it is bad practice to fuzz up the language with mushy jargon or euphemisms.

It's not just my OPTION, Seth. I'm not the odd man out here. You are. Nobody I've ever heard of uses the term intelligent design to describe what humans create. A painter doesn't intelligently design a painting. An architect doesn't intelligently design the Chrysler Building. A woman doesn't intelligently design her makeup and outfit in the morning. A genetic engineer doesn't intelligently design genes. A plastic surgeon doesn't intelligently design tits.

That's the usage you're pushing for, and it's not proper English usage, and, again, only serves to confuse.

YOU are free to misuse the word at YOUR option.

[Coito ergo sum]

Being a Biotechnology major, and as a result one who is extremely familiar with genetic engineering, I can tell you that the idea of genetic engineers intelligently designing living organisms is utter bollocks at this moment in time.

The thing that's been done closest to the organismal scale, if you will, is Craig Venter and co chemically synthesizing a genome identical to the genome of a naturally occurring organism.
Much of genetic engineering involves cutting and pasting using enzymes, and this doesn't mean you are intelligently designing organisms. Synthetic Biology involves synthesizing and pasting, but this isn't remotely close to the organismal level either.

Genetic engineers may intelligently modify genes and genomes for particular purposes, but none of this translates to anything tantamount to designing an organism.

Next.

Yes, that's true. But, the idea under discussion was a "what if" humans engineered an organism. That would be genetic engineering.

Moreover, if you modify genes and genomes, you would say to your colleague, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, and we were modifying genome X for the Dow Project, and ...." You wouldn't say, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, intelligently modifying genomes for the Dow Project..."

That's my point about this whole thing. We don't need to call stuff that humans do (or, aliens from the planet Krypton) "intelligent design." It's a useless redundancy and an unnecessary term. We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them.

[GenesForLife]

:nods:

[tsig]

...intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

That's just Russell's teapot and invisible pink unicorns; you can do better than that...

No, it's not. Russel's teapot et al are analogies intended to justify poverty of imagination.

It's hardly irrational to suggest that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, or some other universe, now is it?

It's actually a perfectly logical inference we can draw based upon an observation of the existence of intelligence on Earth. Moreover, the intelligence that exists on earth, which is an objective fact, is capable of manipulating DNA and changing the course of evolution of living organisms, which is also an objective fact. Therefore, it is a rational inference to say that it is possible that intelligence capable of manipulating DNA exists elsewhere in this, or another universe. In fact, many scientists think it's inevitable that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, given its size and complexity. And there is no reason not to believe that such intelligence exists in other universes, if other universes exist.

And because it is a logical and rational inference to believe that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe at this time, since it exists here in this time, it is likewise a rational inference to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe at another time. Thus, it is rational and logical to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe in our past. After all, our planet is only 4.5 billion years old, and our intelligence evolved substantially only in the last few million years, so there is no reason to suppose that other intelligences have not come and gone in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang. Perhaps millions or billions of times.

And that's ignoring entirely the possibility of an intelligence evolving over billions of billions of years in some OTHER universe that has existed for much, much longer than our own, which may have evolved sufficient knowledge and developed sufficient technology to allow it to travel between universes, or even create universes in the laboratory.

Finally, because we are unaware of any inherent scientific limits upon intelligence or knowledge, it is rational to conclude that if other intelligence exists, it may be either greater or lesser than our own, and may be much, much greater than our own, if it has had substantially longer to develop.

None of this requires a "Russel's Teapot" evasion. The metaphor is used to dismiss the possibility of the existence of "supernatural" forces through a fallacious argument from incredulity. While credulity may be strained by the notion that there is a teapot floating around outside the orbit of Neptune, the idea that intelligence exists, or has existed elsewhere is noting even remotely of the sort.

What strains credulity is the notion that there are people out there who actually believe we are ALONE in the universe(s) and that it is impossible for other intelligence to exist, or have existed, and that it is impossible for such intelligences to have meddled in genomics here on Earth. Whether we can prove such an event happened or not, it's illogical and mindlessly irrational not to accept it as a perfectly scientific and valid possibility, however remote.

Did these "other intelligences" have designers?

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps some intelligence developed spontaneously, without the benefit of evolution. We really don't know. That's no reason to resort to "God doesn't exist" as a rebuttal.

If some could develop without ID then we could have developed without ID. So Occam's Razor cuts away your whole argument.

Who mentioned god?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seth, I'll bite when you can explain why an intelligent designer put my optic nerves in front of my goddamned retinae. For an intelligent designer, that seems pretty fucking stupid. Don't get me started on the spine.

[Seth]

Being a Biotechnology major, and as a result one who is extremely familiar with genetic engineering, I can tell you that the idea of genetic engineers intelligently designing living organisms is utter bollocks at this moment in time.

The thing that's been done closest to the organismal scale, if you will, is Craig Venter and co chemically synthesizing a genome identical to the genome of a naturally occurring organism.
Much of genetic engineering involves cutting and pasting using enzymes, and this doesn't mean you are intelligently designing organisms. Synthetic Biology involves synthesizing and pasting, but this isn't remotely close to the organismal level either.

Genetic engineers may intelligently modify genes and genomes for particular purposes, but none of this translates to anything tantamount to designing an organism.

Next.

Yes, that's true. But, the idea under discussion was a "what if" humans engineered an organism. That would be genetic engineering.

Moreover, if you modify genes and genomes, you would say to your colleague, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, and we were modifying genome X for the Dow Project, and ...." You wouldn't say, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, intelligently modifying genomes for the Dow Project..."

That's my point about this whole thing. We don't need to call stuff that humans do (or, aliens from the planet Krypton) "intelligent design." It's a useless redundancy and an unnecessary term. We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them.

I think the engineers at NASA, or Scaled Composites, might take umbrage at the notion that all their design work is not the product of intelligence.

Quite obviously, the term "intelligent design" is intended to discriminate knowing, directed intelligent design from "natural" undirected evolution, so now you're just erecting strawmen stuffed with red herrings and adding a dash of semantic pettifoggery because you can't stand the idea of being anywhere in the vicinity of the Discovery Institute in your argumentation. That's just irrational niggling.

[Seth]

Seth, I'll bite when you can explain why an intelligent designer put my optic nerves in front of my goddamned retinae. For an intelligent designer, that seems pretty fucking stupid. Don't get me started on the spine.

Maybe he/she/it was experimenting with optic nerve design. Just because the design is not perfect doesn't mean the object wasn't designed. One has only to look at the Russian Zil, the AMC Pacer, the Edsel or the Yugo to understand that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, I'll bite when you can explain why an intelligent designer put my optic nerves in front of my goddamned retinae. For an intelligent designer, that seems pretty fucking stupid. Don't get me started on the spine.

Maybe he/she/it was experimenting with optic nerve design. Just because the design is not perfect doesn't mean the object wasn't designed. One has only to look at the Russian Zil, the AMC Pacer, the Edsel or the Yugo to understand that.

Very true - which is exactly why the way things are in the world today, and the structure of life, is no indication of design at all. Things are the way they are. Whether they were designed that way is the issue, and can't be assumed by the fact of existence.

[Clinton Huxley]

Seth, I'll bite when you can explain why an intelligent designer put my optic nerves in front of my goddamned retinae. For an intelligent designer, that seems pretty fucking stupid. Don't get me started on the spine.

Maybe he/she/it was experimenting with optic nerve design. Just because the design is not perfect doesn't mean the object wasn't designed. One has only to look at the Russian Zil, the AMC Pacer, the Edsel or the Yugo to understand that.

As far as I'm aware, on none of those classic cars, did the designer put the windscreen wipers on the inside...

[Coito ergo sum]

Being a Biotechnology major, and as a result one who is extremely familiar with genetic engineering, I can tell you that the idea of genetic engineers intelligently designing living organisms is utter bollocks at this moment in time.

The thing that's been done closest to the organismal scale, if you will, is Craig Venter and co chemically synthesizing a genome identical to the genome of a naturally occurring organism.
Much of genetic engineering involves cutting and pasting using enzymes, and this doesn't mean you are intelligently designing organisms. Synthetic Biology involves synthesizing and pasting, but this isn't remotely close to the organismal level either.

Genetic engineers may intelligently modify genes and genomes for particular purposes, but none of this translates to anything tantamount to designing an organism.

Next.

Yes, that's true. But, the idea under discussion was a "what if" humans engineered an organism. That would be genetic engineering.

Moreover, if you modify genes and genomes, you would say to your colleague, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, and we were modifying genome X for the Dow Project, and ...." You wouldn't say, "Hey, Mack, I was in the lab today, intelligently modifying genomes for the Dow Project..."

That's my point about this whole thing. We don't need to call stuff that humans do (or, aliens from the planet Krypton) "intelligent design." It's a useless redundancy and an unnecessary term. We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them.

I think the engineers at NASA, or Scaled Composites, might take umbrage at the notion that all their design work is not the product of intelligence.

I'm going to go over this one more time. I did not say that their work was not the product of intelligence. I said it wasn't "intelligent design" as that term is used in modern English usage. "Intelligent design" does not mean "any product of intelligence." It means what i've told you it means, and you can find iterations of that meaning in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

Quite obviously, the term "intelligent design" is intended to discriminate knowing, directed intelligent design from "natural" undirected evolution, so now you're just erecting strawmen stuffed with red herrings and adding a dash of semantic pettifoggery because you can't stand the idea of being anywhere in the vicinity of the Discovery Institute in your argumentation. That's just irrational niggling.

No - I'm just using the English language. Yours is the semantic gamesmanship, Seth. You're the only one using the term "intelligent design" in the way you're using it - you're creating a special definition. Unless, of course, you want to cite your sources - any dictionaries or encyclopedias? Any texts on intelligent design that use the term like you do? Any scholars or researchers or scientists that use the term like you do? If there are, then that would be evidence of a secondary usage that I'm presently not aware of. As such, I do not think your individual definition can rise to the level of a secondary usage.

Moreover, it is by no means bickering or quibbling over trifles to want to use the meaning of the term "intelligent design" correctly. That's fundamental to this issue. And, you're the one who created this "semantic" argument. That's all it is - you're suggesting a new meaning to the term "intelligent design." That's, by definition, semantics. And, since you're the one who started the argument, it can't be pettifogery to clarify that your invented definition is just that, something you have invented and not in general use in modern English.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, I'll bite when you can explain why an intelligent designer put my optic nerves in front of my goddamned retinae. For an intelligent designer, that seems pretty fucking stupid. Don't get me started on the spine.

Maybe he/she/it was experimenting with optic nerve design. Just because the design is not perfect doesn't mean the object wasn't designed. One has only to look at the Russian Zil, the AMC Pacer, the Edsel or the Yugo to understand that.

As far as I'm aware, on none of those classic cars, did the designer put the windscreen wipers on the inside...

The designer may have been insane.

I remember as a child having fun with legos and erector sets and creating very impractical things.

Moreover, one cannot "preclude" the possibility that the universe is a giant Rube Goldberg machine.



Note the Intelligent Designer hard at work.

[Seth]

That's my point about this whole thing. We don't need to call stuff that humans do (or, aliens from the planet Krypton) "intelligent design." It's a useless redundancy and an unnecessary term. We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them.

I think the engineers at NASA, or Scaled Composites, might take umbrage at the notion that all their design work is not the product of intelligence.

I'm going to go over this one more time. I did not say that their work was not the product of intelligence. I said it wasn't "intelligent design" as that term is used in modern English usage. "Intelligent design" does not mean "any product of intelligence." It means what i've told you it means, and you can find iterations of that meaning in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

You said, and I quote, "We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them." Don't blame me for your imprecision in writing.

I know what you want "Intelligent Design" to mean (note the capital letters), but as I've said, I'm not willing to abandon the field of "intelligent design" (note the lower-case letters) just because you dislike the Discovery Institute.

The concept of intelligent design (lower-case) is a perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry, and it's a perfectly valid and useful descriptor of the concept. You may object to the use of Intelligent Design (upper case, AKA "ID") as explicated by the Discovery Institute et al, but conflating their version of things with the broader concept is merely being a dog in the manger and is just an avoidance tactic to satisfy your visceral distaste for neo-Creationism.

I'm not joining you in that game.

Quite obviously, the term "intelligent design" is intended to discriminate knowing, directed intelligent design from "natural" undirected evolution, so now you're just erecting strawmen stuffed with red herrings and adding a dash of semantic pettifoggery because you can't stand the idea of being anywhere in the vicinity of the Discovery Institute in your argumentation. That's just irrational niggling.

No - I'm just using the English language.

No, you're not. You're deliberately conflating Intelligent Design (capitalized to denote reference to a specific set of claims by the Discovery Institute) with intelligent design as a scientific concept.

Yours is the semantic gamesmanship, Seth. You're the only one using the term "intelligent design" in the way you're using it - you're creating a special definition.

What's special about it?

Unless, of course, you want to cite your sources - any dictionaries or encyclopedias? Any texts on intelligent design that use the term like you do? Any scholars or researchers or scientists that use the term like you do? If there are, then that would be evidence of a secondary usage that I'm presently not aware of. As such, I do not think your individual definition can rise to the level of a secondary usage.

intelligent design
 
–noun
the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. Abbreviation: ID Compare scientific creationism.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

World English Dictionary
intelligent design

—n
a theory that rejects the theory of natural selection, arguing that the complexities of the universe and of all life suggest an intelligent cause in the form of a supreme creator

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon
Copyright © 2003-2011 Dictionary.com, LLC

Definition of INTELLIGENT DESIGN
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
First Known Use of INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1847
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... t%20design


Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent_design

Intelligent Design is the scientific field that attempts to explain the origin and existence of life and the universe through a Designer. It is very much related to Creationism, though it allows some room for natural processes and does not identify the designer as a particular God. ...
lifeshandbook.wikidot.com/glossary

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... ent_design

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php

intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”

Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise, they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; instead, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), the American molecular biologist Michael Behe, the leading scientific spokesperson for intelligent design, offered three major examples of irreducibly complex systems that allegedly cannot be explained by natural means: (1) the bacterial flagellum, used for locomotion, (2) the cascade of molecular reactions that occur in blood clotting, or coagulation, and (3) the immune system.

Intelligent design was widely perceived as being allied with scientific creationism, the notion that scientific facts can be adduced in support of the divine creation of the various forms of life. Supporters of intelligent design maintained, however, that they took no position on creation and were unconcerned with biblical literalism. Consequently, they did not contest the prevailing scientific view on the age of Earth, nor did they dispute the occurrence of small evolutionary changes, which are amply observed and seemingly work by natural selection. Like earlier proponents of creationism, they wrote statutes or initiated lawsuits designed to permit the teaching of their view as an alternative to evolution in American public schools, where instruction in any form of religion is constitutionally forbidden. In the major case on the issue, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), concerning a school district in Dover, Pa., a federal court ruled that intelligent design was not clearly distinct from creationism and therefore should be excluded from the curriculum on the basis of earlier decisions, notably McLean v. Arkansas (1982).

Opponents of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection and that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms. Some noted that the argument had been refuted by Darwin himself in direct response to Paley. Beginning in the 1990s, conceptual advances in molecular biology shed additional light on how irreducible complexity can be achieved by natural means. Evolutionary biologists proposed various approaches to explain Behe’s three examples of complexity, including: (1) the self-organizing nature of biochemical systems, (2) the built-in redundancy of complex organic structures (if one crucial step is absent, other processes can achieve the same result), and (3) the role of versatile exploratory processes that, in the course of their normal physiological functioning, can help give rise to useful new structures of the body. Meanwhile, intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science.
Thomas F. GlickEd. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... -design-ID

Moreover, it is by no means bickering or quibbling over trifles to want to use the meaning of the term "intelligent design" correctly. That's fundamental to this issue.

I am using it correctly, in its broadest, non-capitalized sense, to refer to the various scientific arguments about the genesis of life and its course on earth as being potentially the product of intelligent design at least in part. That Behe and others have differing views, or models that have been rebutted by others is entirely irrelevant to the core issue here, which is whether the concept of an intelligent designer is an inherently theistic and religious concept, or whether it is a scientific concept that may have been appropriated by theists for reasons having nothing to do with science.

I maintain the latter is the case. Therefore, I repudiate the misappropriation of the field as a smokescreen for neo-Creationism while defending the valid scientific propositions that have been misused by religionists.

And, you're the one who created this "semantic" argument. That's all it is - you're suggesting a new meaning to the term "intelligent design." That's, by definition, semantics. And, since you're the one who started the argument, it can't be pettifogery to clarify that your invented definition is just that, something you have invented and not in general use in modern English.

No, I'm not, as the citations above prove.

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This is from the Discovery Institute, and since you seem to think that they control the lexicon, you must therefore accept as authoritative and definitive their definition of the term.

My iteration diverges from the DI version in that I believe not that intelligent design is the best explanation for certain features of the universe, but that intelligent design is not precluded by any feature of the universe.