Nature can produce striking order without intelligence. Crystals form regular patterns. Snowflakes develop intricate structures. Natural selection can preserve useful variations and gradually produce adaptations that appear purposeful.
This objection warns against equating order, complexity, beauty, or usefulness with design. If known natural processes can produce a feature, its appearance of design alone is not sufficient evidence of an intelligent cause.
Intelligent Design therefore needs criteria more specific than complexity or visual resemblance to human technology. The relevant questions concern the kind of organization present, the origin of functional information, the coordination of interacting components, and the demonstrated causal capacities of competing explanations.
Some apparent design may indeed result entirely from natural processes. The issue is whether all of the design-like patterns examined in this series can be adequately explained that way.
Which characteristics reliably distinguish effects produced by intelligent activity from complex organization that can arise through unguided processes?