Intelligent Design, born of creationism, is creationism disguised by the use of scientific sounding jargon. Some have said that it is science, only that it is “bad” science. This assertion, however, in my opinion, is false, and those who accept it as merely bad science have bought into the ruse which accompanies most publicly presented appeals by proponents of Intelligent Design.

When presented publicly the concept of Intelligent Design is simply unlinked from its Christian origins, its Christian God genesis. Instead it is proposed that the force which is behind creation is a supernatural entity or other unknown entity. The Intelligent Design proponents, publicly at least, claim to accept that the Earth is very old, and that evolution occurs at the micro, but not macro, level.

A simplistic description of the scientific method usually follows this line:

• Observation and description
• Formulation of an hypothesis                                         
• Use of the hypothesis to predict other possibilities
• Experimental tests of the predictions by independent and multiple means.

Those who practice the scientific method seek to eliminate bias where the outcomes of tests are concerned. They are not always successful, individually, but when the experimental tests are carried out in sufficient numbers by scientists who are objective (i.e. uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) rather than subjective (i.e. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices) then bias is most certain to be neutralized.

The ID proponents claim their “theory of Intelligent Design” to be true science. Through use of a blur of mathematics and probability assertions as well as a mix of  intellectually impressive word usage these people, ID proponents, have convinced multitudes of people possessing little to no scientific knowledge that Intelligent Design is legitimate science. What do the actual scientists say? With ease, reputable legitimate scientists are able to see through the thick smoke of irrelevant mathematics, probabilities predictions, and language use. They conclude:

1. That no science has really been done despite assurances that such science would be forthcoming
2. That those proffering Intelligent Design have no biological background
3. Intelligent design is not science and is obviously religiously motivated

It is clear that the Intelligent Design promoters have had the conclusion chosen from the beginning.  Once the conclusion had been chosen then they sought evidence to support that conclusion. As they sought such evidence any contrary information that arises is ignored and the search continued.

Having failed to insert creationism or Intelligent Design into school curriculums ID proponent tactics have changed. Now those who would have myth brought into the academic setting are feverishly trying to undermine the science of evolution, sowing doubt by repeatedly pointing out those areas where the theory of evolution still lacks full information. Exclaiming that the controversy should be taught they fail to note that the only controversy that exists is solely within their own ranks. Science and scientists overwhelming back evolution.