Intelligent design is often equated with creationism. They are not the same, not even close. ID is not based on the Biblical account of creation, it doesn't invoke the supernatural, and it isn't anti-evolution. Here is a quote from a prominent ID advocate that blows the assertion that ID is creationism right out of the water. William Dembski says: According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a blind, undirected, purposeless process. In the words of Richard Dawkins: Stephen J. Gould has compared the evolutionary process to a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter (Gould 1996 page 149). He has also described intelligence as an evolutionary accident. If one rejects this view, is their only choice to be anti-evolution? No. One can view evolution as a teleological process, a process that was designed. Evolutionary biologist Denis Lamoureux says: So is evolution like a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter or is it like an embryological process? The former describes the Darwinian view of evolution and the latter is the intelligent design perspective. While the embryological process is entirely naturalistic and doesn't require an intelligent entity intervening to "attach a nose or an ear" it nevertheless is not a Darwinian process. The embryological process is teleological. In other words, it is a goal-directed, pre-programmed process. It doesn't depend on accidents (mutations) coincidentally linking together with random changes in the environment to produce a baby. So the issue before us isn't ID versus evolution. It's teleological evolution vs non-teleological evolution. A blind watchmaking process vs a goal oriented process. Polls show that about half of those that believe in God also believe that God guided/directed the evolutionary process. This view is not compatible with Darwinian evolution which is a blind, undirected, purposeless process. The alternative? Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says: There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design. The ID perspective allows one to investigate these evolutionary possibilities: 1. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled. 2. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time. 3. Permutations of 1 and 2. Here is a comparison of ID with creationism: Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't. Creationism claims the earth is 6,000- 10,000 years old. ID doesn't dispute the earth is 3.5-4 billion years old. Creationism claims the earthâs geology can be explained primarily by a worldwide flood. ID doesn't. Creationism claims that "Created kinds" of plants and animals can vary only within fixed limits. ID doesn't make this claim. Creationism rejects common ancestry. ID doesn't. Creationism is anti-evolution. ID isn't. The reason ID critics insist on equating ID with creationism is because they want to discredit ID with the public by associating it with the controversial tenets of creationism. It's not that they merely want to point out that creationism and ID both reject the Blind Watchmaker hypothesis because that wouldn't discredit ID with the public. Polls show that around 45% of Americans believe that God created plant and animal life as described in Genesis. Another 45% believe God guided an evolutionary process to do the job. Neither group thinks natural history is devoid of design and the ID critics know they aren't going to get anywhere by pointing that out. But the group that accepts guided evolution can be turned against ID if they are convinced that ID supports a young earth, rejects common ancestry, is anti-evolution, anti-science, etc. Don't be duped by the ID critics. ID is not creationism.