The intelligent design movement has gained inroads into the scientific community, thereby creating a lot of debate. Skeptics of this movement have called it “watered down creationism” while others have stated; “ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins” Stephen Meyers ID proponent.
Intelligent Design, goes by two basic principles; “irreducibly complexity” and “specified complexity” none of which originated from the Bible. Irreducibly complexity explains in a scientific way what evolution cannot do such as there can be no new information created unless there is an intelligent designer. Also if you take away one or more parts, the function stops working. Thus, evolution couldn’t happen.
As far as specified complexity, it’s basically an organization of certain finely tuned elements such as language, chemical motors, functions which has to execute precisely it’s objectives. All elements makes an intelligent designer delectable.
Intelligent design advocates common ancestry and an old earth which is in agreement with evolution. The movement doesn’t go as far as proposing who or what the designer is. It’s beyond science they say so they labeled it as an intelligent agent or agents. Which leads a person that the designer could be supernatural.
In contrast proponents of evolution claim, design is just an “illusion” of what we see, but it’s really natural processes at work. Natural section is the unthinking process which decides by random chance which advantage a created non-living object or living object should have.
“Chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being…Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no `isness.’ Chance has no isness.
I was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to do something” RC Sproul
Creationism on the other hand, uses the Bible and identifies the intelligent designer or creator as being God not some “agent” as the ID movement would like to call it. It uses Biblical proposals and then science to confirm these proposals. For example, the natural world is subject to natural law which cannot be broken nor modified in any way.
Some of these consist of the Law of Biogenesis where it states life comes from life after it’s own kind. As we see in nature, animals being born after their own kind. Then there is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It’s defined as an energy mass which cannot be created out of nothing (E=mc2), and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
Intelligent design can be complimentary at times in it’s proposals to help confirm what the Bible states on who the Creator is and reveals what evolution is not able to accomplish in the natural world, but in no way does it replace creationism.