Who Designed the Designer?

This post comments on an article that appears on the "ID the future" website - "Who Designed the Designer? (A Lengthier Response)" by Jay Richards.

In it, Richards argues that there is no need to ask the question "Who designed to designer" since science only deals with proximate and not ultimate causes. He states that we can infer design even if we have no idea about who the designer is.

I agree, but then that is not the reason for asking who designed the designer. The real reason is this:

ID claims that, since it does not identify the designer, it is agnostic regarding the identity of it. It can not say whether or not the designer was God, Darth Vader, a blob of slime, x or anything else for that matter. The only thing it says is that the designer was intelligent. And intelligence is the only thing that can generate Complex Specified Information (CSI); material undirected processes (MUP - the usual ways things happen in the world) can not. From that it would seem to follow that MUP can not generate intelligence (e.g. via any evolutionary processes) for then MUP would be able to generate CSI. So, either (1) intelligence or CSI will have had to been injected into our universe at some (or several) point(s) in the past OR(/and) (2) intelligence is really a separate entity from the material world that, for all intents and purposes, "just is".

Bill Dembski seems to argue something alongs the lines of point (2) in his upcoming book "The Design of Life" where he writes:

There are now good reasons for thinking that no such causal mechanism exists and that mind is inherently irreducible to brain.23 This is good news for intelligent design, which treats intelligence as irreducible to material entities and the mechanisms that control their interaction. At the same time, it does not mean that intelligence should be regarded as something “supernatural.” Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science. Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations. Indeed, design theorists argue that intelligent causation is perfectly natural, provided that nature is understood aright.

Bill is claiming above that his view of intelligence should not be considered supernatural, because supernatural events invoke miracles. But given that intelligence cannot be reduced to materialistc explanations (i.e. mind is really a separate entity from the brain in which it emerges from [according to Bill]), it also follows that there is no way we can scientifically test for it and thus intelligence is outside the scope of science and is for all intents and purposes supernatural.

Point (1) from above fares no better. MUP are, according to Bill, the only natural events that can take place and thus the insertion of intelligence/CSI into out universe would, by definition, be supernatural.

So, the real reason why we should not be asking the question "who designed the designer" is because logically, ID is not agnostic regarding the nature of the designer; ultimately, according to ID, there has to have been a supernatural designer.