is not a system which provides some ultimate answer to "life the universe and everything," where upon we "know it all." This distinquishes a real new theory about the nature of the universe from a crackpot idea. On balance for every serious working theory which is advanced there are 10,000 crackpot ideas advanced. Crackpot ideas have to also be distinquished from wrong hypotheses, which are advanced in a reasonable manner, but turn up to be erroneous and not how nature works. Crakpot ideas are examples of "what Pauli remarked as "not even wrong," and these idea pop up like bunnies. It might have something to do with the second law of thermodynamics. What intelligent design is trying to do is lay the foundation to say that only intention could have produced reality. The problem with the God thesis is that the universal state, the absolute, has no distinction. It is zero, not one. It is foundation, not apex. It would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. The problem with your point is that this idea of universal intention implies a universal perspective. The problem with that is that perspective is inherently subjective. The only reason complexity is irreducible is because cause and effect constitute different points of perspective. Therefore we cannot determine all potential effects of cause, nor can we determine all possible cause from effect. It is in fact these desiring to create a universal perspective, be it Tegmark's bird's eye