Originally posted by Conrau K
Just to address this point seriously, I think I will just point out that 667joe has misrepresented what theists generally mean if they talk about intelligent design. Intelligent design does not entail that every part of a creature has been designed for maximal utility. It may turn out that aliquo mutato, man would function better (i.e. if he had thir ...[text shortened]... mmitted to the idea that man must be perfect; perfection was taken away as a result of sin.)
Just to take you seriously, which is undeserved, intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis was preferred by Darwin and his contemporaries - it is not a novelty, it was the prevailing wisdom. He tested to destruction the alternative idea that merely random changes could account for variation of species and to his intense discomfort, which made him physically ill, and which he was deeply reluctant to publish, always seeking yet another way to test the alternatives, obsessing for seven years over his study of molluscs as a test subject, driving his family up the walls as a result because they made an awful smell which pervaded his house, he demonstrated very convincingly that random variation is a better explanation than intelligent design.
Nothing that the ID people have said has added to the debate in any way since then except that they dislike the result.
You are plain wrong to claim, in your words,
Intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis simply claims that some stages of evolution are not explicable in purely materialistic theory (which is a false claim anyway) since it objects to the notion of evolution altogether.
This is pretty hard to sustain so of course it will be re-expressed in many ways (like your's) to deal with the blindingly obvious evidence that species are not immutable but change over time. But while less stringent formulations like your's may emerge during debates, they are not actually what the Creationists believe but simply a debating trick to score a few points before retreating to the strong and essential claim that species do not evolve but were made in their separate kinds at the moment of the Creation.
The point being that ID was at one time a scientific hypothesis but it is no longer that - it is now an article of faith among fundamentalists frightened of modernity, one that is not shared by a large proportion of Christians. That is because no proof that they are wrong is ever going to convince them and maybe the attempt is a waste of time.
Evolution is no longer a topic for intelligent dispute and would remain so even if Darwin's work and the theory of Natural Selection was discarded. Natural Selection is an explanation that accounts so well for its many manifestations that there is no reasonable prospect of it being improved upon, though we are always open to serious suggestions.
If the ID argument has to retreat to the line that God set the universe into motion with a set of laws to govern its subsequent development, then everything after the moment of Creation has to be allowed to proceed in accordance with the laws of science. But ID actually does not accept those laws of science and so it is ludicrous to use this as an argument in support of ID. ID does not accept that evolution took place. They have been proved wrong in so many ways that it is tiresome to persist in stupid disputes on the topic. The disputes do continue because the people pushing the claims of ID and Creationism are so dogged, so noisy and so dangerous to education, to science and to the values of our secular (not the same as non religious - our world is very religious) societies.