Intelligent Design, capital I and D, is based on the idea that certain features of the natural world could not have arisen solely through natural processes. That's the whole idea behind the discussion of "irreducible complexity," of systems that could not have developed naturally from more primitive parts.
This version of ID is fundamentally opposed to all-natural evolution. Either the designer had to make the organism from scratch with irreducibly complex system in place, or He/She/It had to step in at some point to install the system in an existing organism.
Lowercase intelligent design, on the other hand, can easily embrace all-natural evolution, because it can include a designer who established rules that could produce everything in the natural world through natural processes. There are very few evolutionists who would argue against that possibility. But DI and its supporters have been trying to sell the latter--an easy sell--and then claim people are buying the former.
This effort is seen, for example, in the results of their bogus poll posted in other threads last week. And it's seen in this silly effort to portray Jefferson as believing in Intelligent Design by quoting him on intelligent design.
“But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?
......... the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.”
But if the rules of a designer produced everything in the world by natural processes then either the processes are directed according to those established rules and hence are not natural and only have the appearance of naturalness or an appeal to a designer is superfluous.
The whole idea behind naturalistic evolution is that none of it gives evidence of a designer and needs none as all results can be explained by natural processes.
” There are very few evolutionists who would argue against that possibility.”
But would they argue for it?