This gets a little tricky. Intelligent Design (ID) can overlap onto either/both Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Naturalistic Evolution (NE). I hope I may be allowed these abreviations for simpler typing. And I hope I may be allowed these labels for clarity. Not everyone in these camps cares for them, but I think they will serve my purpose here. My conclusion, which is copied here for the convenience of those who haven't decided to read my entire explanation, is Evolution (naturalistic) attempts to explain the existence of matter, energy, and life without reference to any force or intelligence outside of physics. Intelligent Design insists that physics itself points to some intelligent power or force acting on it from the outside. Creationism attempts to identify that Intelligence in greater detail, usually pointing to the Bible as His authoritative revelation, assured that sound empirical science will be in harmony with it. Extnended discussion: I distinguish YEC from Biblical Creationism, because many folks who say they uphold the Bible believe that it allows for the many billions of years consistent with NE, and thus would consider themselves Biblical Creationists. DISCLOSURE OF MY POSITION: I disagree. I believe the Bible carefully interpreted intends to convey the idea that God created the entire material universe around 6,000 years ago. Even many Hebrew scholars who believe it to be a fairy tale, agree that that's what the text means to say. In my mind YEC and Biblical Creation SHOULD be synonymous. NE holds to an entirely materialistic origin and development of all things, matter, energy, and ultimately life, by totally natural processes of physics, which are random, mindless, and purposeless. A quote from Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, Jan 9, '97: 'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Which provides a transition to ID. ID holds that there are some combinations of chance processes--which must have occured to bring us to our present state--whose probabilities become so infinitesimal as to be impossible, even over billions of years. They believe that these probabilities can be scientifically/mathematically demonstrated--with which even the likes of Lewontin would seem to concur. These folks see that there must be some intelligent power which can act on physics to bring these things to pass. The ID camp is generally determined to keep discussions of the nature and purpose of the designer out of the discussion of science. But they are not worried about the "Divine Foot" as was Lewontin. ID does not require a God Who is regularly involved with the affairs of His creation. Many in the ID camp have no particular problem with the general naturalistic, uniformitarian timeline of evolution. They simply allow that the Intelligence acted on occasion to see that certain developments took place along the way, which could not have occurred otherwise. Essentially, this is Theistic Evolution, and many people interpret the Bible to allow for it. While Theistic Evolution might be technically Creationism, what is usually meant by the term is YEC. Once the Divine Foot is in the door, it is natural to want to peek through the crack and see what's out there. Now we do indeed leave the realm of science and enter the realm of religion or faith. For many people, this leads to the Bible, the God of the Bible, and even to the realization that unimaginable expanses of time are essentially the miracle-working god of NE. Without the assumptions of age required by NE, they find that the scientific evidence doesn't naturally drive there. Which brings us to YEC. YEC takes the timescale suggested by the Bible's account of creation at face value, and attempts to construct a cosmological model incorporating the available empirical scientific evidence. The model is certainly not perfect or complete; neither is the naturalistic model. Both count on continuing scientific inquiry to fill them in and resolve problems and inconsistencies. Taking the Bible at face value means that most YEC are conservative evangelistic Christians. They vehemently insist that you don't have to check your brain at the door. They (we; I'm one of them, remember) don't see any problem with reconciling science and faith--both are about truth. YEC is also referred to as Scientific Creationism. The point is that the prior commitment is to the accuracy of the Bible, allowing that our understanding of physics is incomplete and changing. NE has the prior commitment to naturalism, or no God, per Lewontin, allowing that their understanding of physics is incomplete and changing. I think, then, that NE might be better referred to as Scientific Atheism. So: Evolution (naturalistic) attempts to explain the existence of matter, energy, and life without reference to any force or intelligence outside of physics. ID insists that physics itself points to some intelligent power or force acting on it from the outside. Creationism attempts to identify that Intelligence in greater detail, usually pointing to the Bible as His authoritative revelation, assured that sound empirical science will be in harmony with it. I hope those in other camps will conisder my analysis to be as fair as possible to their positions. And finally, a link to my favorite creationist website, Answers in Genesis, in particular their topical Q/A page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp --Thanks GB. I think we come from slightly different points on this question, but you show that you have paid attention to both what I DID and DID NOT say. Lynnenorth, Lewontin's statement is given as an erudite acknowledgement that the scientific model is not seamless and involves some level of assumption; I agree that he did not mean to give support to ID. YEC simply adopts different assumptions from a different source. AiG does a nice job of sorting assumption from empirical science, and showing that it is possible to construct a model based on Biblical assumptions that is at least as consistent with empirical science as the naturalistic model. I will add a couple more comments in response both to ratings to my answers and to other answers here. I do not claim, nor do most YEC adherents, that our position is suported by science. I acknowledge that my prior committment, or bias, is a matter of faith. I claim that operational/empirical/experimental science is not at odds with that faith, and in fact that the two can be reconciled in an acceptably consitent model. I do say that NE proponents are kidding themselves when they insist that there is no element of faith in their prior committment to naturalism. The insistence that the physical universe--matter, energy, life--must have created itself is indeed a matter of faith, prior to any scientific evidence. I think it is poor science which rejects out of hand a possible conclusion because it is unpalatable. Let's notice the subtle redfinition of science which has gone on. Science is no longer the search for truth about the physical universe, it is the search for a natural explanation for all things without any god. ID may in that sense be the purer science, since no conclusion has been arbitrarily eliminated. Creationists are, by definition, ID--and then some. But not every proponent of ID is a Biblical Creationist. ID concepts can be handled without promoting any particular faith. What we have right now is one particular faith--atheism--which has the floor in the schools, and is fighting tooth and nail to hang on to that monopoly. Attempting to identify the Intelligence as space aliens simply transports the problem of first causes elsewhere, but does nothing to address it.

Creationism is an idea about the origin of modern organisms which is generally overt about drawing conclusions directly from a religious text, although some proponents may try to find "scientific support" for their conclusion, or claim that there is such support. "Intelligent Design" is a proposed explanation for the forms and processes we see see in modern organisms which attempts to explain itself as being primarily scientific and not religious, even though its basic premise is the existance of a supernatural "designer" and this "designer's" direct interference with the operation of natural processes, on the grounds of the belief that some mechanisms of life are "too complex" ever to have developed in a naturalistic fashion. Whether this designer is taken to be "God", "some-metaphysical-power-which-cannot-be-named", or time-travelling space aliens, the requirement is that this "designer" be able to exist previous to life ever existing, and the nature, method, and intention of this "designer" is untestable, not to mention its actual existance. This puts it pretty firmly in the realm of the supernatural, even if it *is* taken to be time-travelling space aliens -- not to mention the causality problems that raises. Evolution is a secular, non-religious explanation of the origin of the forms and processes that we see in modern organisms as well as the archaic forms that we find as fossil remains, which does not involve any form of supernatural or metaphysical interference as part of that explanation and is based entirely around physical evidence. As a side note: Science is based around the philosophy of "naturalistic methodology" -- which does not say that the supernatural/metaphysical/spiritual does not exist, but does say that it is outside the realm of science because it cannot be adequately tested by material methods, and science holds itself to only looking for material and testable causes and mechanisms. There are a variety of reasons for this, including (in brief) the premise of falsifiability -- that you cannot know if something is *right* unless you have a test which has the capability of proving it wrong -- and the fact that "God made it that way" has never been an illuminating principle, compared to looking at the specific physical materials and processes that make up the "how" and "why" of any given phenomenon. Also, there is an a priori assumption that the physical universe is both consistent and knowable, and that its regularities can be discovered by investigation and rational application of tests; to finish the Lewontin quote given in the other answer (January 9, 1997, NY Times Book Reviews) "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." If one allows "miracle" as an answer to any question, one has instantly devalued any apparent regularity of the universe, and moreover rendered *every* question of why & how effectively untestable -- it makes it impossible to distinguish between actual evidence of a rational process and "God made it to look that way." Science sticks to an assumption that material things have material causes because it is the only way to render the universe testable. Despite many creationist or ID claims, this has actually not just been adequate, but wildly successful so far. But ID's claim that it is science instantly falls foul of the practice of science, because of its declaration that we must appeal to the supernatural for explanation. This actually puts it within the creationist camp. For a further discussion of ID and its proposals, you can see http://www.talkdesign.org/; for explanations of what evolution actually claims and how it supports it, see http://www.talkorigins.org .

Typically... because some who use these words mean different things... Creationism says there is something like a deity that is supernatural and created life and/or the universe by divine power. Most religions that have a "God" are creationist in some sense, but may disagree on all the details. Evolution can mean many things, but in this context I think you mean the position that life "happened" through a random series of chemical events and all life forms have differentiated through a long series of undirected, random mutations and natural selection. Evolution can mean just "change" (which is accepted by pretty much everybody). Intelligent Design (ID) says that statistics and complexity and other analysis indicate that life is not the product of random chance, but shows all the signs of something designed. There is a thought-exercise which asks "if someone who had never seen anything like one finds a fishing pole (or bicycle or car...) one day, what is it about that thing that tells you it is designed and not naturally occurring?" By most analyses any objective rules that can be used to identify designed vs undesigned (and which do not by definition exclude consideration of living things) will identify living things as designed. Most ID proponents make no reference to religion or cosmology, but do recognize the unbiased possibility of a natural or supernatural designer. ID proponents (like me) use only sicence in discussion of ID and defer all the questions about who or what the designer might be to discussions of philosophy and theology because we have no science-testable hypotheses. I remember the comment of one atheistic rejection of evolution which claimed life must have started somewhere else and been brought here because it could not have started on Earth. This person acknowledged that it did not solve the problems of atheistic evolution, but only moved them somewhere else. A "natural" designer could be a simpler form of intelligence or an extra-dimensional, but not "supernatural" being. Dismissing the possibility of ID on the assertion that it is religious is dishonest, ignorant or at least closed-minded and unimaginative.

It is a very tricky question. Creationism, from what I've heard, is often associated with religion. ID is associated with statistics, and evolution is associated with sciences.

I see no conflict. They are all descriptions of the work of God, but differ by their focus. Where can it be proven that evolution and natural selection are not the work of the hand of God? We know that the universe functions very well using a set of clearly defined rules/laws of nature: things fall toward gravity, motion persists, lightspeed is a predictable value (if not constant as Einstein incorrectly stipulated), water expands when frozen, ... Evolution is a process by which God's laws are effected over time, and natural selection is the process by which biological entities choose who survives and who becomes extinct, for not only species, but also traits and characteristics. It's not that mysterious - God set up the rules and the universe plays by them. That includes living organisms, particles governed by quantum mechanics, astronomical bodies, and humans. It's all God's work.

Intelligent Design is Creationism disguised as science; both are a reaction to evolution, a scientific theory which describes the development of Earth's species over history without mentioning religion or the origins of life. Basically, ID was constructed by some creationists around the argument that Evolution is fatally flawed and should be thrown out, coincidentally making room for Creationism to be introduced to public schools. By looking into the history of the Intelligent Design movement, this will quickly become clear. Creationism in public schools was in effect struck down by a 1987 court case which severely restricted the language that could be used to promote a specific religion in schools. An overview of the case can be found here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard The ID movement arose shortly afterwards in order to disguise the same creationist concepts as science, to evade the effects of the Edwards case. The first mention of Intelligent Design as an "independent" theory appeared in the 1989 textbook, "Of Pandas and People". It was published by a group known as Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) which described its goal, before this point, as "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective". It's a pretty terrible textbook that has nonetheless been distributed to lots of unsuspecting kids, and was later subjected to a lawsuit of its own in Dover, PA when a School Board voted to use it in the public scientific cirricula. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case revolved around proving whether Intelligent Design was a religious initiative or a scientific theory in its own right. The judge ruled that revisions to the book Of Pandas and People were clearly designed to sneak around the restrictions of the Edwards case, and that the same restrictions apply to ID as to Creationism, as both are specifically designed to promote Christianity. Here's part of what he said: "By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision." The Dover case makes for very interesting (and entertaining!) reading and there are many useful links at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial There were also some great rundowns of the case at Dispatches from the Culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/dover_lawsuit/) Even more damning for the ID movement is the notorious 1998 "Wedge" document, which details a long term strategy for removing evolution from the schools and replacing it with specifically Christian education. Here's an excerpt from that: "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." According to the Wedge document, there are three phases to the ID strategy. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves supporting monetarily any scientist who will produce results that agree with their creationist worldview. Phase II, "Publicity and Opinion-Making", spreads bogus "research" through book tours, opinion-making conferences, apologetics seminars, a teacher training program, use of opinion-editorials in newspapers, television program productions, etc. Phase III, by far the scariest, is "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal". This involves not only replacing Evolution altogether with ID, but extending that revision to other branches of science, **and eventually to social science and the humanities.** You can read the wedge document yourself here: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The Discovery Institute, while purporting to be scientists engaging in scientific research, truly aims to dismantle science education in America and replace it with religion. Their tool for this strategy is Intelligent Design. Make no mistake, though : the movement which created ID are anti-science creationists of various stripes. Some of the people who read and believed their statements may be more inclined to a balance of science and religion, and some may have even more creative interpretations of Intelligent Design (like this guy, an athiest who believes that the Intelligent Designers are ALIENS! No joke! http://science-is-blind.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-they-dont-want-to-see.html) A lot of those people would be surprised to know that they are means to an end, being the re-installation of religious education in public schools. Check out The Panda's Thumb for a more detailed rundown of these concepts.

Simply ,only the third choice has the only basis in reality.

Shortly, Creationism is the book of Genesis. Intelligent Design is an attempt to prove Creationsism, so they are pretty similar, the main difference there is that ID sais that "the designer" (God) creates new species not just in the very beginning, also in later times of history. And Evolution is the scientific explanation. Here is a very good movie about ID versus Evolution (altough because it is from a science site, it is not completely objective, but almost, because the movie really shows both sides): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dygKP-25WLs Whoever is interested in this subject should watch it, good information!

The third is all about luck and the other two give credit to a higher force involved in the production of the world!

Creationism is the lie that is the result of taking the bible litteraly. Intelligent Design is the religious idea that a creator must have created the universe and so on, it can't be a scientific idea because it involves something "creating" without having a cause. Evolution is the fact that all lives on earth have evolved through millions of years.

One is a purely religious position. One is a purely religious position attempting (poorly) to pass itself off as scientific. One is scientific and backed by actual evidence...

Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible - that the earth was created in literally 7 days. Intelligent design uses factual evidence and logic to prove the existence of an intelligent designer - from a strictly scientific standpoint. It is important to note that this isn't an attempt to prove "god". Acknowledging the existence of an intelligent design does not require you to join any religion, chant, pray, or even call this unknown intelligence "god". Many become aware of an intelligent design and automatically assume that a religion is the only other alternative to evolution theory. Evolution arose from Charles Darwin's "Origins of species", ignoring significant gaps in the the fossil record(that always appear where intermediate animal fossils should be found)that he figured would be filled in in the future(didn't happen), irreducible complexity, fossil evidence from the Cambrian Explosion, and the inherent complexity of DNA(which could not have arisen by chance).

the movie showed that fish-creacher, and the archaeopterix is another example of gap fossils (dinosaurs->birds). Irreducible Complexity is a component of Intelligent Design. It means that there are structures that are so complex that they couldnt have evolved by "accident", it means if only one single part of the complex structure would disappear, the whole structure would be useless. The complexity of DNA is one example for this. The argument agains this from Darwinists is, that there is no irreducibly complex structure. When you "reduce" DNA to some point, you found a structure that existed in viruses and had a purpose. I dont know what the Cambrian Explosion is, I might look it up later.

The first 2 are fantasy at best and full on lies at worst. The last one is a fact.

there is so little difference between the three to be laughable all these arguments over a single concept or word... God.... higher power evolutionists cant prove there is no God believers cant prove there is evolutionists "believe" something id "believe" something creationists "believe" something the basis of science is the same , 100% in all three cases one believes in a higher power...probably God one believes in God and one doesnt the sheer lunacy of people who say the science of the other two is wrong...is like cutting off their own feet. they just come to different conclusions. to say that their science is fact... flies in the face of all true scientists everywhere... no scientist would ever call any scientific knowledge "facts"...even gravity has its flaws... anyone who calls science fact or suggests other scientists of belief or disbelief as less than scientific are true morons

Creationism: God made it from nothing, and over only seven days, He created everything that we know as "nature". Intelligent Design: God created it, but only the very basics. He then stood back and let it grow with only occasional nudges in the direction he wanted it to go. Everything we know, he started and guided as it developed, but didn't micro-manage. Evolution: There is no God, and everything developed on its own, guided only by random chance and the prevailing environment.

this doesn't matter, it needs lots of good circumstances that a fossile even evolves. The discovery of DNA and genetics proved Darwins Theory. He couldn't prove it himself, but he was convinced that he was right.

Evolution is a fact. It can be seen in viruses in real time and the fossil record shows it in historic time. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is a theory of what drives evolution.