"In no way has intelligent design been scientifically shown to be supernatural. Nor has the connection between intelligent design and intelligibility been scientifically challenged in the slightest."
As I have already explained, the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Meyer, Demski, Behe, et al.) have already defined the Designer to be a non-natural intelligent agency. The entire premise of the "theory" is supernatural. I don't understand your second sentence. What's "intelligellibility?"
"Furthermore, the very existence of chemicals that behave according to laws is ample evidence of intelligent design. For reasons only a brainwashed philosopher would understand, you and your cheerleaders continually mistake the results of intelligent design for intelligent intervention at every point. Who's being childish here? I thought you knew better. Even a child knows a shovel doesn't have brains but is organized to perform a specific function and hence might be a product of intelligent design."
No, there's no logical connection to that. There's no evidence to suggest so and the positive evidence offered by ID, CSI and IC, have been refuted multiple times.
"How does the reality of quantum physics (which incidentally is theoretical and subject to wide speculation) coupled with an intelligibly functioning universe militate against the concept of intelligent design? Look at the code behind a computer grahic and it has all the attributes of randonmess, purposelessness, chance, etc. So what?
If one is going to arrive at conclusion that particle matter and its attributes are not a product of intelligent design, then he will have to explain why so much particle matter happens to retain its consistencies and perform purposefully. Of course there have been, and will be, incorrect assumptions and conclusions along the way. This in no way negates or militates against intelligent design, nor does it make intelligent sdesign a mystical, superstitious, religious, or unscientific notion."
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is solid. It's not speculation and neither is quantum physics speculation. A theory in science is any well-substantiated explanation for a broad range of related phenomena. While there exist speculative predictions inside the theory, the theory itself is solid. Besides which, that statement is contradicted with this:
"You touch on some good and interesting points at the end of this post. I take the unpredictability and general inaccessibility of particle matter as another sign of intelligent design, which leaves open a means for direct intervention upon the processes we study, thus making possible physical anomalies, free will, and a host of other potentials that cannot and will not be realized apart from intelligent design."
I don't understand; in the first statement you attacked the Uncertainty Principle in that it seemed to contradict ID. Now, you praise it in that it supports ID? That doesn't make sense.
"I (like most of Western science that seeks purpose, function, order and the like) start with the assumption of intelligent design. Who does not design an animate object without taking care for contingencies and allowing a way to intervene in the course of that object's history?"
I don't think most scientists support ID. In any case though, the reason is simply because ID isn't falsifiable. And its falsifiable predictions, IC and CSI, have been refuted by Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, and other biologists.
Anyway though, a pleasure talking with you.