there are two feloniousmonk's one must be a sockpuppet i edited the intro to say the canonical definition of the discovery institute's intelligent design is that intelligent design sometimes abbreviated id is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection intelligent design is wholly a product of the discovery institute a conservative christian think tank the idea has been around since just like feloniousmonk said above the canonical definition of intelligent design which is the one offered by the discovery institute that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection since id is wholly a product of the discovery institute with every leading id proponent is one of its fellows and every campaign and strategy arising from its offices defining id as they do is necessary in the intro for any of the claims made in the article by dembski behe or johnson to make any sense any intro that ignores the canonical definition is deficient and then some other feloniousmonk came by and reverted watch out