On its most basic level, intelligent design is merely the assumption that reason sits behind the form of the universe: that reason begets reason. I don't see that this assertion is any more enormous than the assertion that there is no reason behind the form of the universe.The idea that the first actor of the universe is a fully formed intelligent being which is beyond the rules and explanations of that universe is an enormous assertion.
I disagree. The existence of bacteria has been proven scientifically. We're discussing philosophical/theological questions which for the most part are contingent upon logical deductions and speculation.It's the difference between asserting bacteria caused the milk to sour and magic caused the milk to sour.
Any theory which attempts to explain existence requires a leap of faith. There is no scientific evidence to support or oppose any theory. The Christian perspective is not that God exists outside of existence. Anything which exists must be within existence. The claim is that God exists both in our world and in a realm beyond time and the physical universe - a claim which would at least be compatible with the general scientific view that the physical universe did indeed have a beginning.Inherently appealing to a force which is exterior of existence and the rules of that existence to explain existence requires an enormous leap of faith.
If the universe was akin to a closed system, you could scour it entirely and still be no closer to explaining the reason for its existence. Being unable to provide a scientific explanation doesn't mean that no explanation exists. Though ultimately you're correct: no matter what you observed you would never be able to disprove God. That said, people don't believe in God simply because His existence cannot be disproven.As Paleo was talking about such a proposition would be inexplicable through any observation. We could literally scour the entire universe and understand all knowledge within it and still not come to any sort of way of proving or disproving that assertion.
They fall short of the theist view. They don't necessarily fall short of the deist view of intelligent design. If it were provable that our universe was a designed "pocket universe" we'd still be no closer to knowing what the ultimate cause of the universe was (assuming that there is one). You'd just have another link in the chain of events leading to the present - albeit one which demonstrated a a measure of coherence to the universe's form.It's a non-explanation in which we presuppose the divine in place of any such explanation. Now if you're wondering about the possibility of a life designing earth? Yeah could easily happen. What if this universe is a pocket universe designed in some interdimensional school project? Also possible. However both of these explanations fall significantly sort of God and do not contain the rather silly assumptions that typically follow it.