It is not science. It offers no testable hypothesis. It endlessly repeats the hopeless logic that because biological, cosmological, and natural process that are highly complex seem to perform a function, this is evidence of design. Design theorists revert to statistics to show the how unlikely it is that these process emerged on their own, with no guidance.
The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.
If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.
Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.
