This is the Intelligent Design in the words of ID proponents:

Quote:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. 

- http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

People have attacked and criticized the ID movement as creationism masquerading as less religious. It has been referred to as "pseudoscience", misleading, and religion based rather than science based.
People have attacked it as just having negative arguments that criticize natural processes and concludes that life (and universe) is designed from that. The ID movement claims to have positive arguments for design and believe that we can detect design in nature and test it. Two common arguments they use are irreducible complexity (minimum parts for functioning in a system) and specified complexity (designed things being complex and specified). 

What do you think of it?

(March 25, 2017 at 12:17 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: People have attacked and criticized the ID movement as creationism masquerading as less religious.

That's because that's exactly what ID is. When creationism was struck down by US courts to keep religion out of public school education, creationists just reworded creationism to disguise it as something less religious so they could try again. They called this "Intelligent Design". The restructuring didn't fool the courts, so it's not going to fool me.

(March 25, 2017 at 12:22 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 12:17 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: People have attacked and criticized the ID movement as creationism masquerading as less religious.

That's because that's exactly what ID is. When creationism was struck down by US courts to keep religion out of public school education, creationists just reworded creationism to disguise it as something less religious so they could try again. They called this "Intelligent Design". The restructuring didn't fool the courts, so it's not going to fool me.

I have heard most Pro-ID organizations are opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.

(March 25, 2017 at 12:28 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I have heard most Pro-ID organizations are opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.

Sure. They've learned that pushing for that was't getting them anywhere. That doesn't change where the ID argument started from.

(March 25, 2017 at 12:30 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 12:28 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I have heard most Pro-ID organizations are opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.

Sure. They've learned that pushing for that was't getting them anywhere. That doesn't change where the ID argument started from.

Do you believe ID could be science or that design wouldn't be testable anyways?

(March 25, 2017 at 12:31 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: Do you believe ID could be science or that design wouldn't be testable anyways?

It's not at all scientific. They call it a scientific theory, but it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be both testable and falsifiable, and ID fits neither requirement. To be called a scientific theory, it must get far past that point.

(March 25, 2017 at 12:22 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 12:17 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: People have attacked and criticized the ID movement as creationism masquerading as less religious.

That's because that's exactly what ID is. When creationism was struck down by US courts to keep religion out of public school education, creationists just reworded creationism to disguise it as something less religious so they could try again. They called this "Intelligent Design". The restructuring didn't fool the courts, so it's not going to fool me.

Exactly this.
There are even some publications that, after the reworking, accidently contained traces of the word " creationism" or "creationist" near or around the words "intelligent design" or "design proponent". They literally took what they already had and altered a few words. Somehow, they even failed to do that very well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
"The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists"

ID is absolutely creationism repackaged. And barely repackaged at that.

The Intelligent Design stuff is just an evolved creation myth.

Intelligent design is just a way the religious insinuate god without actually having to mention him by name .

ID is so 2004. I don't think after Judge JJ's opinion after the Dover trial that it's still a main priority for creationists. They now try different things, political maneuvers that have less to do with selling it as science and more with "freedom" and "choice"