Understanding the critiques of evolution that come from Intelligent Design is critical to understanding Intelligent Design itself. This is because Intelligent Design ultimately doesn't amount to much more than an assault on naturalistic, materialistic evolution. Intelligent Design was created to find a foundation for attacking evolution that sounded more rational than traditional creationism, but it hasn't grown beyond most of the fundamental problems behind all forms of creationism.
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Intelligent Design is founded upon two basic assumptions: science cannot explain basic aspects of the complexity and intricacy of the universe and, therefore, that those aspects of the universe point to the existence of God. This does not result in necessarily rejecting all of evolutionary theory, but they do argue that the naturalistic foundations of evolution are inadequate to explain at the very least the origin of life. Their belief that life was designed, however, is ultimately more about attacking evolution and proposing a new, legitimate explanation for life — just like traditional creationism.
Supporters of Intelligent Design Creationism are not united by any positive philosophy, scientific perspective or research program. They all agree on a belief in the need to introduce more religion into people's lives, but they don't agree on the details of religious beliefs. Indeed, they are often separated by significant theological differences which tend to be glossed over in order to present a united front against evolution. There are those who are fundamentalists and biblical literalists, for example, but those considerations remain absent from their presentation.
Robert T. Pennock explains in his book, Tower of Babel:
Intelligent design theorists have learned a few lessons from the failures of their predecessors and have devised a more sophisticated strategy to compete head on with evolution. One of the main things they [intelligent design creationists] have learned is what not to say.
A major element of their strategy is to advance a form of creation that not only omits any explicit mention of Genesis but is also usually vague, if not mute, about any of the specific claims about the nature of Creation, the separate ancestry of humans and apes, the explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophic global flood, or the age of the earth - items that readily identified young-earth creationism as a thinly disguised biblical literalism.
What does unite advocates of Intelligent Design, then, is their opposition to evolution specifically and the scientific methodology of materialism generally. Apologists for Intelligent Design are driven by a firm belief that materialistic, naturalistic science is corrosive to morality, politics, and society generally — the same concern which have motivated creationists for decades.
Intelligent Design Goals & Destination
This raises the question of just what would happen if the Intelligent Design movement were to succeed in unseating both evolution and materialism from their places in science. Without a set of common goals beyond unseating evolution, and without a set of common beliefs, they having nothing substantive to offer in place of evolutionary theory or teaching about evolution. Most likely, apologists for Intelligent Design would end up turning on each other in a sort of religious "civil war."
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it declares that certain questions not only have not been solved by science, but also that they cannot be solved by science. According to Intelligent Design theorists, certain questions can only be answered by appealing to the unknown actions of an unknown Designer (which they all believe is God, though they are careful to avoid saying so).
Why is this a problem? Because it asserts that certain questions are empirically and scientifically insoluble, and once that is decided, there is no more reason for any further scientific research. Now, while it may be true that some problems can't be solved by science, declaring it to be so in advance can only have an detrimental effect on scientific research.
As the Christian chemist C.A. Coulson explained back in the 1950s:
When we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct position is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intelligent Design theory should not be a part of "science education" and should not be taught in public schools. The AAAS Board released a resolution to the effect in 2002, stating very clearly that presenting Intelligent Design Theory alongside the genuine science of evolutionary biology would confuse children about the nature and integrity of science.
