What constitutes Intelligent design?

This is a classic cart-before-horse argument.The constants of the Universe are not set to be ideal for life. Rather, life arose because the conditions of the Universe were favorable.It's like saying that the probability of life starting on Earth, where conditions are so great for life, is tiny compared to life starting on any of the other planets in our solar system where the conditions are far less favorable. There's no probability involved - life arose in the environment where conditions were favorable because conditions were favorable. Similarly, the conditions of our Universe make life a possibility, and so life was able to exist. There's no probability involved.The argument that the favorability of conditions in our Universe, or on our planet, or anything else, is based entirely on personal incredulity. Yes, one can gain a sense of personal wonder and amazement that conditions happened to be just right for humanity to evolve - but humanity evolved in the way we did as our ancestors were forced to adapt to those conditions through natural selection. Given different conditions, life might still exist, simply in a different form - and whatever form of life it would be, it would exist in an environment whose conditions are favorable.Let's lay a little game. Instead of the constants of the Universe like c, let's play with environmental differences right here on Earth.What's the probability of conditions being just right for camels in the middle-eastern desert? I mean, if the temperature was significantly colder, or there was plentiful water, or any number of other environmental differences, camels would never have evolved as a successful species in that region. If the middle-eastern desert had conditions like those in Antarctica, camels would never have been able to evolve at all! Amazing, isn't it? See, the conditions of the middle-eastern deserts must have been set into place by an intelligent entity in order for camels to exist!This argument is obviously silly. Camels evolved the way they did in response to their environment. We know the way evolution works - populations evolve to match their environments, not the other way around, and no goal is in place.Evolution is the Blind Watchmaker - it's a completely mindless, unintelligent, inevitable process (given living organisms that reproduce imperfectly and limited resources, of course) that produces complex, highly diverse results. For all the wonder and amazement and personal incredulity, there is no intelligent agent at work here. Intelligence is demonstrably not required...and silly suggestions involving the probability of suitable conditions demonstrate ignorance of the real processes involved.

Which isn't actually evidence - it's a reason to look for something, but it's really just personal incredulity. "Plausable alternatives" in such a context tend to be misleading. It is a "plausible alternative" that we all live inside of the Matrix, and none of our observations are "real." No evidence, however, supports such an unfalsifiable, ultimately irrelevant suggestion. The essential factors of evolution are:a) existing life
b) imperfect reproduction
c) limited resourcesThat's all. If you're honestly suggesting that an intelligent entity is required to establish a system whereby life forms reproduce imperfectly (frequently with detrimental, and most often irrelevant results) in an environment with limited resources, then your "intelligent designer" is neither intelligent nor a designer.Again you are putting the cart before the horse. The basic properties of the Universe are not set to be beneficial to life. Life arises in a way adapted to the properties of the Universe.

You're leaving out the most important part: Only a very restricted range of each makes life as we know it possible.Remember my example of the camel? It evolved the way it did becasue of its environment. Given a diffrent Universe, different forms of life suited to that environment could arise.The other flaw in your argument is your assumption that the constants of the Universe could possibly have any other value. If we were playing with dice, you could say the chances of any given number are one in six. For this example, you have no idea what values for each constant are possible or probable. We could be playing with a coin, a six-sided die, a 20-sided die...or this could simply be the only possibility. You can't establish probability without knowing how many other possibilities you're drawing from. "Enormous odds" are funny things. Does winning the lottery imply that the random number drawing was somehow tuned to favor the person who won?Certainly not. Suggesting such a thing is silly. It's exactly the same with "probability" arguments surrounding the constants of the Universe. We know only that these are the constants of our Universe. We have no idea whether they could potentially have other values, and even if they could, we know that life adapts to the environment, not the other way around. You're seriously suggesting that an intelligent entity designed the arabian deserts so that camels could live there, rather than camels evolving adaptations for the existing environment. Whether you are "satisfied" or not is irrelevant. We know from direct observation that life arises in any given form in a response to its environment. We have no evidence suggesting that environments are "tuned" by an intelligent entity to suit those life forms. If the latter was the case, we should not see extinctions - the intelligent entity would "tune" the conditions for whatever creature it wanted. Science doesn't typically concern itself with "why." It concerns itself with "how." We observe processes and model them, and then test the models through experimentation and observation.The "goddidit" response is always a silly leap in logic as a response to ignorance. When an unknown is encountered, "god" is exclaimed. Parsimony so far has dictated that "god" is irrelevant at best, and nonexistent at worst. You're looking for meaning because you feel special. Stop. You aren't. None of us really are any more special than we decide for ourselves. Grow some humility, get over yourself, and realize that there is no evidence that the Universe was created specifically for you, and that we came into existence as the result of perfectly natural processes in response to the natural laws of this Universe. Once again - we, and everything else alive, evolved in response to the environment. Given different conditions, life would have evolved differently or not at all. It's not "resistance." It's identification of a flawed and silly argument. You're putting the cart before the horse. Of course the claim that the constants are "fine-tuned" by an unknown entity to be suitable for life is based on incredulity! "Wow, it sure is remarkable that the Universe is structured in such a way that life exists. It's unlikely that this is just natural, a deity must be involved!"That is an argument from personal incredulity.The Universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. Life is well-adapted to the environment. You can see this for yourself. Take a population of organisms and make a change in their environment. Watch as the population diverges from the original environment and adapts to the new conditions through a few generations.I can't say this enough times: you're putting the cart before the horse. "Flame wars" are not permitted on this site. Pointing out the flaws in an argument, however, are the entire point. If you think having your argument de-constructed and shown to have the strength of wet tissue paper is flaming, I should really introduce you to sites where "flame wars" are allowed.