By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.
As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.
Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.
Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.
As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.
Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two?
By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. In any case, I can "ascribe detail" without resorting to ID. It contributes nothing.
Gumlegs: As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.
Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.
Fester, you brought up air, not me. We have an explanation for gravity that is entirely natural. It doesn't depend on "intelligent designers" or angels pushing stray bits of matter to earth. You might want to read up on it before you lump it into the inexplicable.
Your post-modern critique is noted. Not respected, but noted. Were you one of those surprised that Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," turned out to be a hoax?
Gumlegs: Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.
As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.
Explains everything = explains nothing. You can spin this forever, but "organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws will be found" is meaningless. Your own claim, "It fairly well fits with everything" is as damning as it gets insofar as ID's being scientific.
Anything could be predicted with ID. Precambrian humans? The "intelligent designer did it." No precambrian humans? It's that ol' "intelligent designer." A change in allele frequency over time? It's the intelligent designer, for sure. A new generation of pigs sprouting wings (thanks, RussP)? Why, that intelligent designer is at it again. ID's predictive power is nil.
Gumlegs: Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two? I'm not surprised that you can't name something that ID doesn't predict. AFIK, it predicts everything and nothing.
I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer, except to note that you persist in confusing intelligence in humans with supernatural intelligence.