I find both of your “questions”- or objections regarding ID to be false dichotomies. First of all regarding the multiple designers- ID never says that there can not be multiple intelligent causes or multiple intelligences. The reason why ID postulates only that “an intelligent cause” (that is singular) was involved is because as far as we know there could be a single intelligence great enough to get all the work done and because for the sake of Occam’s razor we need not postulate more than one for the sake of the theory. So of course there “could” be multiple intelligences involved but unless you have evidence for specifically gearing the theory towards multiple intelligences then I think it is off target and a distraction to what the theory is really all about which is design detection but not designer identification which would be a secondary question.

Secondly your point about “some design” is not really on target either- as Dembski has made it clear in his writing like his book “The Design Revolution”, inferred design can indeed only be a part of the puzzle. That is we may be able to explain say 90% of an object via natural non-teleological processes but if we know that by far most likely that 10% must be designed than we infer a designing intelligence played a role.

Now logically what you need to understand is that if a designing intelligence did play a role in only 10% than one can infer the logical possibility that the designer may have done the whole job that is 100%. Natural process can mimic design to a point and no further but design can mimic natural processes in total. This highlight’s the philosophical problem of induction which is we can never know for sure that God didn’t create Darwinian evolution to hide his presence- it is a logical possibility. What ID postulates is that nature can’t probabilistically – that is in all likelihood, produce specified complexity- and that when we see SC and it looks like obvious design like in DNA and the molecular machines in the cell, we are scientifically correct to infer the elephant in the room- ID.

SO certainly you can have both ID and natural processes. Look at Mt Rushmore, you have the obvious intelligent design and you have wind and erosion playing a role in the aesthetic formation of the structure.

So to simplify the answer to your first question is “Yes” there could be more than one but postulating more than one dies us no good aside from evidence. And the answer to your second question is that ID never claims that natural processes or non-teleological processes might not be involved along side a certain degree of design- I would add though that ID does not rule out that natural processes themselves might be designed as well.

Snowflakes look like elegantly designed objects, but they are the product of natural forces at work.

Except snowflakes don’t meet the design criteria.

Snowflakes look like elegantly designed objects, but they are the product of natural forces at work. Nature can produce designs. Intelligent?

One thing we know for certain about all sorts of design, like watches or Swiss Army knives is that they are not just designed – they are manufactured too.

Designs typically are subject to evolution as well. Timekeeping devices started as sundials or clepsydra’s – evolving into atomic clocks with most sophisticated design.

This means that we know for certain that any and all designs we know are not just one-off designs, but the result of repeated cycles of experiment – design – production. It therefore seems most reasonable to believe that the designer responsible for design in biology also would have to apply similar methods.

Without functional designs to study, copy and improve upon, without blueprints, our designer most likely would have to start from scratch, without any knowledge of how to make life.

Would he even know that this thing we call life was a latent potential of matter; that workable, self-replicating machines might be made using chemistry instead of mechanics?

But of course, if the designer – as many Christians believe – is God, such considerations need not apply since God is of course equipped with unlimited magical powers.

But I’m being rediculous … please forgive me.

Would it help by defining ID as against the notion that all we observe can be reduced to matter and energy (chance and necessity)?

I fear that your search for a more neutral definition of ID is in vain. If you ask ten biologists for a definition of evolution, you will get ten different definitions. If you ask ten physicists for a definition of quantum mechanics or relativity, you will also get ten different definitions. The definition on this web site is authoritative because Dr. Dembski is a prominent ID researcher. However, if you were to ask Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe for a definition, they would likely not use exactly the same words.

In particular, an ID framework can apply to the characteristics of the entire cosmos, or to the origin of life, or to the evolution of life. Each of these would include the idea that an intelligent cause is the best explanation. However, the details of what is being explained would be different in each case.

Certainly the “seedlessness” of certain watermelons comes under the ID umbrella. So does the design of a car or a software program. In fact, I’ve see the term used various product advertisements.

I don’t thing adding the term “neural” adds any clarity to the definition, because, frankly, we don’t know if designer(s) we are talking about had neurology in the way we think about it. Even Richard Dawkins’ aliens may not have had a neurology that we are familiar with. But they must have had intelligence.

There was a long thread here (possibly this: Miracles and the Principle of Causality) which discussed the idea of “natural intelligence” vs “supernatural intelligence”. You might find it interesting.

Either way, even spiders produce specified complexity that is outside of the range of “unguided natural processes” if you limit “unguided natural processes” to purely physical and chemical processes.

I like the term “nano-intentionality”. And there is no doubt value in differentiating these forms of intelligence. But I think the point of ID is not how these are different, but how they are the same. So I’m not sure that these differences serve clarify what ID is trying to demonstrate.

If we find “human” archeological artifacts from a place or a time where we “know” there were no humans, what are we to conclude? That a supernatural mind created them? Not necessarily. Likewise, if we find other artifacts of intelligence in unexpected places, we don’t need to immediately jump to a supernatural explanation. We do, however, need to jump to an intelligent explanation.

Regarding some of the other posts, I am not trying to clarify what ID is, so much as trying to clarify the wording of the definition. As the definition stands now, to simply agree that the “seedlessness” of certain watermelons (certain features of living things) is better explained by an intelligent cause instead of by undirected processes such as natural selection, would put that person under the ID umbrella. I think we should have a more formulaic and precise definition.

For instance, if we said that certain features were better explained by non-neural or extra-neural intelligent causes, that might fit better. ID should be something more than just saying that spiders have low intelligence and they use it to create webs and catch flies. Is there a better term to include/encompass things like nano-intentionality, smart cells, and supernatural minds, while excluding intelligence in the form of brains and/or neural systems?

It is not officially any such thing. I believe you are teasing us.

I could agree that it might be better to say “intelligence or intelligences,” if it truly causes confusion, except that it is unwieldy. I never took the phrase of ‘best explained by an intelligent cause’ to define that intelligence as being singular.