I.D. is Bad Science on Its Own Terms In the comment thread of a previous post, one Intelligent Design advocate protested that I.D. is misunderstood and frequently misrepresented by defenders of evolution, and he offered this pithy definition:
ID is the claim that there exist patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligent agency. ID doesn’t claim to be a default explanation. It is claimed to be a legitimate hypothesis, supported by a large body of evidence, that deserves consideration without being rejected on principle because of a preconceived metaphysical bias.
Read the article in its entirety here.