Evolution IS intelligent design. Intelligence predisposes more intelligence and order -- thereby reducing randomness. To insist that one has to be able to explain in exact scientific detail what is happening is the delusion of pseudo-educated people. The understanding of modern science is precisely the realization that there is no absolute certainty but only a best guess at what is happening, and even less precision on what has happened -- not more, as social scientists (liberals) believe. The most information available is what is happening right now -- but that information is so overwhelming that few would be so vain as to proclaim they are aware of it all -- much less that they understand it all. With a past, or future event, less information is available and much is surmised and presumed.
If a scientist presumed to know more than God, then he would be able to explain God -- in exact detail -- His motivations, methodologies, history, psychology, etc. But just to do that with another human being is already problematical. Einstein never claimed to have a perfect understanding of even the closest people in his life -- much less God. Spinoza, Pascal and Heisenberg also disclaimed having this perfect, or even the most complete knowledge of what is going on. In fact, in order for their knowledge to be valid, their claim is only that theirs is probably what is going on -- and they are open to other, fuller, more comprehensive explanations. Meanwhile, the marginally and usually poorly-educated, invariably think they "know it all."
So at the highest levels of proficiency, there is always this underlying humility -- and not the presumptuousness of most self-appointed experts in the media, who are 99% hype and a gross overestimation of exactly what it is they know. But that doesn't seem to stop or deter many of these columnists and newspaper editors from proclaiming themselves as the world's smartest person in their daily columns.
But you offer no evidence of this "Intelligence" Where is the measurable and quantifiable evidence of it?
If I put a 2x4 across a couple of saw horses I can measure the force it takes to break it. Knowing the strength of the material and using Statics. A structure can be designed that will keep you sheltered and won't collapse on your head.
If I put a voltage across a piece of Silicon a current will flow. If I understand how it react electrically when manufactured with certain impurities (dopants). We produce the processors and equipment that we are conversing on.
Science is a tool we use to try and understand our world. And to use that knowledge to build a better tomorrow. Yes every scientist, engineer learns that there is an awful lot they don't know. But we can't run around acceptiung things based upon unsuported claims, wether it be a device that increases your gas milage by 50% or ID. It has to be subjected to the same degree of critcal analysis. Hence we need to know how it works before we can concider if the theory of operation is plausible and ideally reproducible.
Many scientists believe in God. But they do so with no evidence. That's why they call it "faith".
Other scientists would answer that they can describe "God", in that He does not exist. He has no motivations, methodologies, history, etc. and that is an exact description.
What evidence to you have of God? I'm assuming you're talking about the Judeo, Christian God.
There's some old books. But then, there are other old books claiming to describe other deities.
There is some external evidence that Jesus and other prophets existed. But I don't doubt you'd agree that there are false prophets and preachers today. Jim Jones is merely the most horrific example.
There are claims of miracles of Jesus. But how do we know they were not just very good magic tricks? Jesus only had 12 disciples, and it would not be hard to get that many corrupt tricksters in one place. Back to Jim Jones; he had a thousand followers, who sold their worldly goods and met death with him in Central America. Jesus only had 12 followers at His end.
This discussion about the existence of God is the downside of the ID community starting this fight. And they *did* start this fight. There are no significant scientific groups that make their living attacking religion. Certainly none that get comments out of the President.
How many good Christians will be exposed to the overwhelming (and it really is overwhelming) evidence for evolution, and being faced with the choice of believing in God, or believing in the reality in front of their eyes, will reject God? You probably won't. But I did.
There is another way. Google up Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the human genome project and evolution proponent, and read his discussions on religion. He does not think there need be a conflict between faith and science.
But if religion insists on escalating this conflict, I predict they will lose badly, once the fight against ID is truly joined.