:::::::: You are correct on this point. Intelligent design currently claims, erroneously, that intelligent design is the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". But that's a statement, not an argument. An argument needs at least two components: (1) premise; (2) conclusion. An example of an argument would be, "The universe exhibits design. Design is only created by an designer. Therefore, the universe must have a designer." This is the teleological argument. Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause (rather than evolution)". It is no more an argument than modern evolutionary synthesis is an argument; both simply make statements about what the universe is supposedly like. This is why there can be arguments for and against intelligent design; it is nonsensical to make an argument for an argument. -