Because there are various incarnations of ID floating around, I felt I should make clear the working version I am using here.

Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).

The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.


You need to define your terms. Is a carbon-60 molecule "complex"?

[image|http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2003/May-09-2003/BuckyballEDU2.jpg|0|Carbon 60 Buckyball|300|304]

It looks pretty complex to me. It's man-made, but it's not made by people picking up individual atoms and arranging them just-so. It's not "designed", though it might appear to be. It forms naturally under the appropriate conditions. By naturally, I mean that the carbon bonds arrange themselves to minimize their energy without any supernatural assistance. The result is the soccer-ball shaped "Buckyball". No ID is needed.

ID is the supposition that says: "I can't figure out how this was done, therefore some being ('God', but I can't say that word) did it. That being cannot be studied by science. Since nobody knows, at this moment exactly how this thing was done, I can argue that my religious construct is just as good as science and get equal billing."

ID is not science. It's not a "[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science|soft-science]" either - it's religion. It's damaging to science and should be fought vigorously.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.