What constitutes Intelligent design?

What if the design is resident within the existence, character and magnitude of these forces?Edited by Eclogite, : No reason given.

In exactly the way it is being done at present by many cosmologists and physicists. Investigate the criticality of the values of fundamental constants (Martin Ree's "Just Six Numbers")to a Universe that is - apparently - biophilic; explore the extent to which these constants are constrained; estimate the probability they would have values that favour the emergence of life.

That is part of the active debate on this subject. Martin Rees The Astronomer Royal, for example, already considers the fine tuning of these constants remarkably unlikley. He uses this as evidence for the multiverse - a range of alternative universes of which ours is a rare fortuitous example in which life can emerge. However, I believe he acknowledges that an intelligent creator of a single universe is a plausible alternative.
A second part of this debate - one more relevant to a forum dedicated to evolution - lies in the biochemical field. Numerous authors express the view that life is inevitable in the Universe. (de Duve 1995; Ward & Brownlee 2003; Conway Morris 1998; etc) and some of these argue that this includes intelligent life. Williams and Frasto da Silva (2003) have made the case that thermodynamics and the laws of chemical interaction have created a strong direction to evolution. They are not unique in such a claim. Now direction does not require guidance, but the two are often associated.As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitue evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.

Sorry guys. I am yet again staggered by the dogmatic responses I am receiving from some of you and the apparent ignorance of how current these ideas are within segments of the scientific community. Nevertheless your comments do merit a serious reply yet my current work load is making more than an occassional snatched post rather difficult. Please accept the incompletness of my replies as a reflection of my limited time and my limited communication skills, not as evidence of the weakness of the ideas themselves. How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life? From the enormous range of possible values for these constants only a very restricted range of each makes life possible. This demands an explanation. Three spring to mind:
1) Despite the enormous odds, things just happend to work out that way. This is basically the Weak Antrhopic Principle. I find the WAP to be something of a cop out.
2) This is only one of many, many universes, most of which cannot and do not contain life. We have some speculative mathematical expositions to support this notion, but no real evidence.
3) Against this backdrop the teleological explanation is surely one worth considering. This is an unsatisfactory explanation. Science seeks to provide explanations and saying 'that's just the way it is' is little better than saying 'God did it'. The favourable conditions of the environment - the remarkable favourable conditions of the environment - require an explanation. This was first pointed out by Henderson in 1913(?) in his work 'The Fitness of the Environment'. It has been amplified by others since.
Do you really think it is scientific to simply ignore this fact? Are you concerned that it is an area that would not lend itself to scientific investigation? I am at loss to understand your resistance. Please don't talk nonsense. Are you actually questioning the fine tuning of the fundamental constants? I am not, offhand, aware of any cosmologists or physicists who doubt this fine tuning. Some may favour explanations 1) or 2) above, but none base their belief in fine tuning upon a personal incredulity.And do please note - I have no idea which of the three explanations is the correct one. I have a prejudice against the weakness of the WAP, but do not entirely rule it out. I am completely open minded on the issue,therefore patronising remarks such as those you employ in your last paragraph entirely miss the mark. Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.