[oldleft]

I didn't realize these two concepts were mutually exclusive. I firmly believe the evolution happened and is still happening, and I don't want intelligent design to become code for creationism. I have no problem with a higher power guiding evolution, and I thought that's what intelligent design was.

[Quark2005]

I have no problem with a higher power guiding evolution..

Neither do I.

I have no problem with the idea of intelligent design as an idea, but to call it a scientific conclusion? If a cell, for example, appears irreducibly complex, it either means

A) God (aka. the Designer) is directly responsible or

B) It evolved through naturalistic means (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) but we don't know how yet.

How can the choice between these conclusions be falsified? We know of several cases of very complex systems (e.g. blood clotting mechanisms, antifreeze in Arctic fish blood), once thought to be irreducibly complex, where solid testable theories of their naturalistic evolution have been found. Does intelligent design say some systems evolved naturally but others require the intervention of the Designer? How does it empirically distinguish between which are which?

I believe science is important; I believe religion is important, but both have limits - muddying the waters between the two does a disservice to both, in my opinion.

[D Rider]

I have no problem with a higher power guiding evolution, and I thought that's what intelligent design was.

ID is not so narrow as to be totally exclusive of that idea, it is one of the competing ideas. What has been dead(for the last 35 years) is evolution by random chance (Darwinism.) What took its place was chemical evolution. This is where the action is where serious study is concerned. But... the leading proponent of CE, actually the guy that literally wrote the book on it is now ID. I do not now the specifics of his view on ID, if he follows the deism track like you or is a creationist.