I have questions for fans of intelligent design. But first, some background.
The theory of intelligent design has, to my knowledge, never explained anything whatsoever about any aspect of the anatomy, physiology, or behavior of any organism. In spite of this, the theory of intelligent design claims to be a scientific--specifically, a biological--theory.
Intelligent design authors claim that evolutionary biology is full of holes, and yet their many arguments--the mousetrap argument, the salmonella flagellum argument, and so on--have all been shot down (check out the "Index to Creationist Claims" at talkorigins.org for detailed refutations of many ID arguments). In spite of this, ID still claims to be preferable, scientifically speaking, to evolutionary biology.
Documents which came to light during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case show that an original ID text, Of Pandas and People, started its life as a creation science text. Only when creation science was legally judged to be a religious and not a scientific theory was this text revised, replacing talk of Creation and the Creator with Design and a Designer. Thus, ID really seems to be, in the words of the National Center for Science Eduction, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
Now, given all these facts (assuming that my understanding of these issues is correct), here are my questions for ID fans:
1) is there a single example of a scientifically testable explanation coming out of ID theory for the anatomy, physiology, or behavior of any organism whatsoever?
2) assuming the theory of evolution were proven false tomorrow, what would ID have to offer in the way of practical scientific knowledge that would cause us to have ID replace evolution?
3) what is the difference, if any, between ID and the old, William-Paley-style teleological argument for God's existence (the argument from design)?
I look forward to your responses.