I disagree. Proponents of "intelligent design" always, always beg the question of religion.
For example:
In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.
The question begged is "what intelligence?" The obvious and immediate answer is the Creator. (Unless, of course, you're a Raelian.) "Intelligent design theorists" are creationists, and the sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to advance the idea that the Creator created life. Not that there is anything wrong with the idea. There's nothing bad about being a creationist. But it isn't scientific. "Intelligent design" is nothing but creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.
Now, I sincerely believe there is nothing wrong with the idea of creation in a religious context. All too often, objections to "intelligent design" are characterized as hostility to religion. With a few exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem that I, and many others, have with "intelligent design" is that it is advanced as a scientific theory; particularly an equivalent and alternative theory to evolution. It is not a scientific theory. The sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to torpedo the scientific concept of evolution because some people believe that evolution contradicts their religious faith.
The purpose of science is not to answer philosophical and metaphysical questions, such as "is there a Creator" and "why do we exist." By its very definition the divine defies description and transcends measurement. The purpose of science, however, is to describe the physical world in concrete terms. Science is simply a tool. One does not demand ethics from a hammer or inclined plane. By dressing up religion as science, "intelligent design theorists" do a disservice to both science and religion.
Not sure I agree with the above statement. I do see, however, many evo's trying to torpedo ID.
ID is interesting because it can account for primary forms, which evo cannot. Why is it not possible that evo IS the intelligent design? Right along with the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or mathematical constants?
Obviously the universe operates under a strict system of rules or laws.....where did they come from? At least ID has an answer.