You did not deal with the most important part of my post, which was WHY they didn't need to deal with the nature of the designer. I find it a bit deceptive on your part to take a quote from mine which was not WHY, and then simply repeat why you think they need to deal with a designer.
I will try this one more time...
ID's argument is that if it can be shown that no natural (meaning undirected) process could possibly have generated a biological entity, then the only other option is that it was created via a directed process.
They then attempt to prove that it is impossible for certain biological entities to have been produced by undirected mechanisms. They claim to have done this through mathematical/statistical modelling which can show a practical impossibility.
Now you can have a problem with their argument, or you can have a problem with their method of determining "impossibility" (I sure do), but what you cannot do is claim that they must tell you what the designer is or looked like or whatever. They have constructed their argument in such a way that they simply don't have to do that.
My guess is Dembski and other creationist philosophers sat up late nights devising that argument for just that reason... it allows them to escape such demands and thus puts them out of the "creationist" category for legal hairsplitting reasons.
The only points you are making are for what comes AFTER their conclusions have been substantiated. They really do not need to deal with it beforehand. Of course that does not prevent you from assuming (for sake of argument) that they are right, their theory is proven correct, so what is science to say now.
That acts as a nice reductio for IDists, who aren't thinking ahead about what science always does next... it moves to the next question. That does not mean IDists have to answer that as part of their theory however. Their theory is ONLY regarding the capability of detecting design, which could just as easily be directed at objects which might have been designed by humans. As has already been pointed out, it could be a future use of detecting that dolly was designed while other sheep are not.
To be honest, my own arguments against ID are a three prong attack. I attack their assumption, I attack their methods, and then I use the reductio after assuming their methods work, just to show they really don't want science to follow their trail if in fact their theory worked in assumption or method.
Naturally science would have to ask... next... about methods employed and the assumption would still have to be natural (mechanical) ones. It could be directed high energy, but the point remains that it is nonsupernatural forces. Suddenly God would look a lot closer to man.
Indeed, even if we assume that everything they say is true, eventually we'll end up discovering how we could produce the biological entities. The theory would then have to use that as a model. Unless they are going to employ the argument that it may be an as yet unknown means of directed production.... Buuuzzzzzzz... Too bad IDers as part of their argument in support of their method is to rule out that kind of argument. They cannot appeal to as yet unknown mechanisms! And if they do then their method caves.
And then we can always have fun talking about what their intention for us was, given our production design. After all, created things have a prupose. What is our very obvious purpose: eat, sleep, screw. They cannot appeal to "fallen" states, or manipulations by secondary forces/designers as that would be ruled out logically, or if they accept it rules out monotheism.
They would certainly have a dickens of a time when they find out they aren't allowed to jump from design detection to arguing that the design was implemented through supernatural means, and have scientists use their own arguments against them, asking for the calculations to show the probability actualization of a supernatural force. Suddenly their own "black box" and "leap of faith" (as Behe described) will be revealed.
If you want to pursue the ramifications of what will happen if ID is assumed to have worked, in order to present various reductios to them... fine. But what you cannot do is tell them that their theory requires an identified nature of the designer. As constructed, it requires no mentiond of that.
At best you could simply point out that its assumption will have to be based on a designer that worked with material causes, as they themselves appeal to SETI, archeology, forensics, etc etc.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
