Hey Steve,
Thanks for starting this discussion. It has given me some food for thought. FWIW, I’ve always thought that Dembksi’s first book was a fair attempt at codifying some scientific aspect of ID, by proposing some probability-based measure. The definitoin arrived at more recnetly:
“Intelligent design is the study of systems whose information output is best explained as the result of intelligently inputted external information rather than the inherent capacities of the systems.”
… seems to me to be backing away from The Design Inference, and rather embracing what I find to be a poor substitute, basically “it looks that way”. This is because, for anything not obviously connected with humans, there is no way to determine (heck, even define) “intelligently inputted external information”. As noted in this discussion, this leads back to the very origins of the universe and an embrace of extreme fine-tuning (another way of saying “it looks that way”). My own suspicion (that I am happy to be corrected on) is that the hard work of developing a system wherein probabilistic considerations in nature could be properly studied was and is just too much for the ID community. So they have reverted to a circular and unscientific definition.
I am curious - you state that a “narrowong of possibilities” in relevant various aspects of biology (such as developmental biology). You mention that information theory may have something to say about that. Is this your experience or alternately a hope for future research? Maybe you have gained some insight in your years working with scientific journals. I woudl welcome any recollections or reflections that could nudge this discussion along.