The belief in Intelligent Design is based on the concept that when one observes nature, one sees patterns within it. They believe that patterns require a designer. Intelligent Design is simply a belief based on ignorance of science- in reality, patterns DO form naturally, through simple cause and effect relationships, without the need for a designer. Any simple fractal generator can be used to disprove Intelligent Design. No one designs fractals- they just happen through repeating simple recursive formulas. An infinite degree of detail from simple origins.

The ways I have always heard intelligent design (ID) explained by its proponents never attempt to identify the designer, rather they simply argue from actual observable evidence that design is a better explanation for the existence of life on Earth than random chance. I have never appealed to any scripture from any religion when explaining ID to other people. Opponents of ID rather than its defenders always seem to associate it with some religious position. Essentially, ID says that life is evidence of a designer, but makes no attempt to identify the designer. I make the comparison: if we visit Mars and find in a cave some obviously fabricated alien machinery, we would accept that as sufficient evidence that an intelligent designer exists beyond Earth. We may not be able to tell if that designer has DNA or even if it is conventional matter/energy or some extra-dimensional intelligence - you don't have to be able to describe or identify the designer to recognize that something is designed. That is essentially the position of ID: legitimate (though not universally accepted) analysis shows that life on Earth gives the appearance of being designed, but we can draw few conclusions about the designer beyond intelligence and the capacity to act on the design. In contrast, the Bible account of creation begins with the assertion of existence of God who created everything (defining the designer - something ID does not even attempt) and makes no attempt to argue from observation and analysis (which is the basis of ID).

I think that Intelligent Design is just a watered down and generalised version of Creationism. It hides its religious motives by not referring to the Bible and is disguised as science in an attempt to sneak religion into Public Schools. ID is the thin end of the relidgious wedge.

The fact of the matter is that the theory of Intelligent Design isn't any different than creationism. The "rendition" (as you put it; and that's a good word choice) in the Bible may have a different face, but the concept of a supreme intelligence/creator creating everything in one fell swoop, ex nihilo, isn't any different. Intelligent Design was, after all, a cynical (and transparent)attempt to get around court rulings that forbade the teaching of creationism as science in public schools. To put a finer point on it, its originators and proponents all believe this prime intelligence to be the Christian deity. It's still religion, no matter what it's dressed up as.

Read the book INTELLIGENT DESIGN by william a dembski. ...THE BRIDGE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY 'although intelligent design is a fast goriwing movement that was gained considerable grassroots support, many scientists and theologians remain skeptical about its merits. Scientists worry that it is bad science (merely creationism in disguise) and theologians worry that it is bad theology (misunderstanding divine action) In this book william dembski addresses just such concerns and brilliantly argues that intelligent design provides a crucial link between science and theology.'

ID is a creationism repackaged so they could legally teach it public schools.

ID is identical to creationism except for the name and the way it is sold to people. That is "design" is substituted for the word "creation," and "intelligent agency" is substituted for the word "God." However, the Discovery Institute, the leading organization in promoting ID, has openly admitted on their website that ID comes from the Christian Bible, even though in most statements made to the public, they say it has nothing to do with religion. Of course, they would not defend this claim under oath.

science theoretically begins with no presuppositions. while it is impossible to be completely objective, science brackets out certain things from discussion and observation. For instance, a mechanic would repair a broken car but probably wouldn't contemplate the name of the factory worker who put the car together. He or she would look at the car and decide what is wrong with it. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God not can it prove or disprove the universe was created. I feel like ID tries to turn scientist into philosophers, although some scientists (cough-Richard-Dawkins-cough) have become philosophers in order to prove or disprove ID. The reason why the creation accounts (yes there are two) are in the Bible is to explain that everything comes from God. (later it was important because some trains of thought saw the material world as being inherently evil, and we should therefore strive for the perfect spiritual world. Genesis clearly calls the created world "good.") ID is based on bad science and bad theology.