You have some flaws here. Let me correct them.

Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Natural selection isn't really "undirected." That means that natural selection, or even evolution, could be the "designer" you are looking for.

If not that, then "apparent design" itself could be the designer. You are laboring under the notion that a designer must be different from design itself; you should consider that they may be the same thing.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

As noted earlier, ID is not scientific. It does not offer a usable definition of intelligence. Without that definition, there is nothing to work with.

When the ID folks offer up a definition of design that really works, then we'll have a real debate here. 

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case

I don't think this is true. Intelligent design is looking for some kind of a designer. That makes it basically the same thing as a creator. I think that's why people lump ID and creationism together.

www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

 

Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Nonsense on stilts, as demonstrated by the very words of the movement's leaders themselves:

Philip Johnson:

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

William Dembski:

"[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Paul Nelson:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but as yet no general theory of biological design."

There's a lot more where that came from.

Also, in the Dover trial, Michael Behe, the only proponent of ID with any significant, credible scientific background, admitted under oath that for intelligent design to count as science, we would have to lower scientific standards so that astrology counted as science.

Intelligent design is not science. It is a political sham to force religion into public schools.

Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Honest critics of intelligent design know their facts.

In the Dover trial, it emerged that the creationist text book Of Pandas and Thumbs was changed after the creationists lost a major battle in court on the grounds that it was a religious doctrine. The change consisted merely of replacing each instance of "creationism" within the text to "intelligent design", their new brand following the lost legal battle.

So, no, you have things backwards: identifying intelligent design as just creationism under another label is not merely a rhetorical strategy on the part of the scientific community, it is a recognition that cynically, even the leaders of the ID movement know they are the same, hence the re-labeling in the pages of their most famous text.

Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:31AM, Blü wrote:

Further, no examinable evidence suggests, let alone demonstrates, that supernatural beings (as described by various theological concepts) or magic (the power to alter reality independently of the rules of physics, in particular by wishing) have objective existence.

If they don't have objective existence then the only thing they can be is imaginary.

You jump from the statement "no examinable evidence suggests" to "therefore they have no objective existance".  Now if you want to infer the latter from the former for reasons such as the most efficient explanation given the former is the latter I won't argue the point.  But logic doesn't dictate or even support such negative inferences.  Since there is no rational way to get from point A to point B in this case what you've said can't be other than a statement of preference.  So if you are going to say this you can't also seriously expect me to accept your claim that you are being rational over my claim that you are merely making a statement of preference.