“I disagree. The universe is not intelligent. How can this be intelligent design? Does Falk believe the universe is intelligent? I doubt it.”

I’m going from what Falk is saying. He seems to be saying that it is. If he is not saying that the universe is intelligent, then his argument fails completely.

Joseph -

“Part of the reasoning for figuring it out is to determine how it came to be (the way it is).”

Part of the nature of design is that many designs leave the mechanism unfindable. For instance, if I have a computer program, it is impossible to tell if the person who typed it out typed it with one hand or two. Maybe he just typed with his thumbs, or maybe he used a breathing straw input device. The mechanism of design is almost entirely obscured.

The study of design is the study of formal relationships. This is why it is often accused of being anti-science. Science has historically been all about mechanism. In computer science we have developed some tools for examining formal relationships between parts, but this has not been used much outside of it. ID is taking the idea of examining formal relationships and extending it to biology. That doesn’t make the historical, causal relationships unimportant, but it does mean that in some cases, they will be unassessable.

But anyway didn’t “the fall” free “God” from responsibility?

And I still hold out hope that by examining the design we may be able to figure out the “who, how, when,” etc.

ID is only about the detection and study of (the design).

The reason we study it is so we can figure it out.

Part of the reasoning for figuring it out is to determine how it came to be (the way it is).

And along the way we may pick up clues as to the “who”.

Just sayin’…

I disagree. The universe is not intelligent. How can this be intelligent design? Does Falk believe the universe is intelligent? I doubt it.