[syriacus]

What began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining, is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism

I know next to nothing about Intelligent Design.

Do all Intelligent Design proponents, nowdays, believe exactly the same thing -- that it is an alternative to Darwinism?

I do know I was taught in HS Biology, 40 years ago, that the theory of evolution was acceptable as long as one believed God was behind whatever evolution took place. That has always seemed, to me, like the common sense to way to look at the world.

Was what I was taught the same as "Intelligent Design"?

[Dimensio]

Was what I was taught the same as "Intelligent Design"?

No. Intelligent Design proponents assert that the universe is too "complex" to have come into existence unless it was deliberately designed by some "designer" whose exact properties are totally unstated except that it (or they) is (or are) capable of creating universes and things in it. Ultimately it comes down to them arrogantly declaring supreme knowledge of how the universe works and deducing that because they can't work out the natural processes required for certain events to occur, an intelligent agent must be responsible.

ID as it is typically presented has no religious overtones, though you'll usually find that those pushing it are trying to secretly push a religious agenda.

[curiosity]

Was what I was taught the same as "Intelligent Design"?

No. "Intelligent design" is the claim that certain things, like bacterial flagella or the blood clotting mechanism are too complex to have evolved through Darwinian processes. In other words, it is anti-Darwinian.

It is not to be confused with the philosophical belief that God designed the universe so that intelligent life would evolve. Nor is it to be confused with the belief that God designed through the use of natural processes, like mutation and natural selection.

It is actually the assertion that man's orgin required SUPERNATURAL intervention, and further, that this can be scientifically demonstrated.

It is, of course, pure garbage.

[muawiyah]

There are several competing general ideas out there that are described as being "Intelligent Design". There's also Panspermia ~ and it has two major forms ~ one of which says life is so ancient that it predates the Universe so we can't really know where it came from, or how, and another form which says life is actually a creation of this Universe and arises as a consequence of the interaction of fundamental laws government chemistry and physics.

In both cases Panspermia's advocates say there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that life could originate on Earth given that it is so small and inconsequential, or that the mutations necessary for evolution can occur in such a limited environment as is available on Earth.

There are, of course, variations on those points of view.

Panspermia happens to be consistent with the traditional view which has God bringing life to Earth from other sources. It is not, however, consistent with the geocentrism inherent in current evolutionary theories which require that everything take place on Earth. Further, it is not consistent with the traditionalist viewpoint that Earth was created only a few thousand years ago.

Presumably, someday, we'll understand enough about life to figure out how it works.