“Intelligent Design” (ID) is widely promoted as an alternative to conventional science, but its advocates disagree on several points and do not give consistent definitions of ID. Both promotion and rebuttal of ID often confuses it with young earth creationism, but the two have important differences. I propose to define ID as looking for evidence for or against God in science. In practice, this focuses either on supposed gaps in evolution or on perceived “fine-tuning” of the laws of nature so that they would allow intelligent life to exist. The former characterizes popularly marketed ID and relies heavily on illogical and untruthful arguments, some of which relate to paleontology, especially the Cambrian radiation. The latter depends on subjective assessment of scientifically unmeasurable probabilities. Correspondingly, the “new atheism” exemplified by Dawkins relies heavily on illogical and untruthful arguments to claim to provide evidence against God from evolution or other science, and multiverse explanations of fine-tuning depend on subjective assessment of scientifically unmeasurable probabilities. Thus, these are actually alternative versions of ID.

Supporters and opponents of ID often get entangled in political issues. The reason that ID does not belong in science classes is not that it is religiously motivated, but that it is not good science, regardless of the motives.

Two other approaches provide better ways to address ID in religious audiences. First, ID markets itself as the only alternative to atheism. In fact, evolution and other geology neither support nor refute atheism and are compatible with traditional theological views. Second, in its zeal to promote its claims about science, ID is theologically careless and internally inconsistent. At several points it clashes with traditional Christianity. Highlighting the fact that evolution may actually be a better match for many religions than ID is may reach religious audiences better than scientific presentations.