ID is saying that there's at a minimum some kind of organizing principle (logos) out there somewhere.
Creationism is Judeo-Christian all the way down to the Genesis Flood.
So far as "causal closure" is concerned -- there isn't anything in ID that of necessity stands in opposition to cc depending on how one views "organizing principle." There clearly is in creationism a contradiction to causal closure. This causal closure hypothesis tends to highlight the stark contrast between ID and creationism.
The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. ...Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
(third)The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.
The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
Excellent insights, xzins! I'm not sure I agree, however, with the above italics. My disagreement stems from my skepticism that an "organizing principle" is something that could have arisen from purely natural (physical in the causally-closed hypothesis), random causes within 3+1D spacetime. If an organizing principle was loaded into the initial conditions of the universe and effectuated by the Big Bang (the "before" of which is something unknown and perhaps utterly incomprehensible, but in which we suspect that no matter or energy existed, or even the physical laws as far as we can tell), then it is something that is prior to universal evolution, and "outside" of it. That is to say, my suspicion that the reason ID is so detested in certain scientific circles is precisely because it is recognized that it asserts a non-physical cause -- which violates the "causally-closed hypothesis" on its face.