Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?

Hi aiguy! Welcome to EvCForum.I have very much enjoyed your succinct and well-reasoned argument. In fact, I have enjoyed it so much that I intend to ruthlessly and unashamedly plagiarize it the next time I am confronted with a Dembskiite argument inre specified complexity and the rest of that rot .One side comment that seems to me to pertain to your OP that has not been discussed yet on this thread is a potential fallacy of equivocation that appears inherent in any argument concerning computer intelligence. To wit: we have but one single example of known "intelligence" (however we operationally define that term) to get on with - i.e., "human intelligence". It strikes me that we may be imposing artificial constraints on what constitutes "intelligence" in the first place. We are, in effect, saying that a computer can only be considered intelligent if it "acts like a human". Since even human behavior can only be predicted stochastically (in the aggregate, and with a large enough sample), why assume that an "artificial intelligence" would be human-like? Indeed, why should we assume that we'd even be able to recognize non-human "intelligence" if confronted by it? Even Alan Turing couldn't get beyond the problem of defining intelligence without relation to "human" intelligence - his "test" was based on the inability of a human judge to distinguish between a human and a computer in a conversation.I think this point has a profound implication for ID. They too appear to be defining intelligence only in relation to human-scale "intelligence". Admittedly, they provide their putative Designer with "awesome cosmic powers" (albeit stuck in Behe's "itty bitty living space" [/end Aladin mode]). However, I submit they are merely magnifying existing human capabilities - not postulating something beyond human ken (or beyond human intelligence). There is no inherent reason why a computer - which after all in many areas already exceeds the capabilities of an un-augmented human (especially when we're dealing with distributed processing systems or GA, etc) - couldn't develop something that we could neither recognize nor understand, IMO.I'd be interested in reading your take.