Of course there are alternatives to both ID and evolution - for example The Flying Spaghetti Monster

There's a good article on the Discovery Institute (the coiners of the phrase "intelligent design," and the most prominent lobbyers for including it in public education) here.

Scientific American also published one a few months ago, but I think it's been long enough that it's not free anymore. I'll link if I can find it.

Well, the proponents of I.D. tend to claim that they make no opinion on who/what the designer might be and therefore does not relate to religion.

My feeling is that I.D. is simply not science. You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.

Besides, there are explanations of how complex mechanisms in cells (the primary argument of I.D.) could have evolved. One has to bear in mind that complex cells took some two billion years to evolve, it's not like this complexity happened overnight.

I thought Intelligent Design was a very clever and marketable name for Creationism.

Bingo.

I still like the proposal that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal time with ID as a scientific theory - especially given the proposal that as a gesture of respect it must be taught in full Pirate Regalia.

You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.

Exactly.

My feeling is that I.D. is simply not science. You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.

Mine as well. It makes me very angry, in a spluttering manner.

Hmm...from the article flea linked to:

For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists, proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

So it's even more clever than I thought! It's a baby step away from the Theory of Evolution and towards Creationism, wrapped in a more palatable coating.

One of my favorite ID conversations was with a cow-orker last year. Him: "Well, the 'Theory of Evolution' is just a theory. That means it's not true."

Me: "Yep. Like the Theory of Gravity. Don't bother yourself about the fact that "Theory" is a commonly used term."

You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.

Like that Far Side cartoon with a bunch of mathy stuff on a black board, then a spot with "a miracle happens here" and then more mathy stuff. The prof points at the miracle section, saying, "You might want to be a little more specific here."

It makes me very angry, in a spluttering manner.

This is both a reasonable and natural reaction.