Intelligent Design is not Creationism an interesting article explaining why the how the origins of Intelligent Design. Here is his conclusion:
Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.
Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
I fully agree that ID is not Creationism and that it comes from scientific observations. But that does not make it a scientific theory. What would ID predict? (Prediction is fundamental element of a scientific theory.) It seems to me that the only thing ID can predict is that we will find more things we can't explain. ID is not an unreasonable conclusion. I am just question whether it is a scientific one.
