Is this the same thing as standard creationism, or is there a difference?
But ID is Science, Garfield. 
ID is a big tent, which appeals to creationists, but not only to them. Indeed, most creationists I’ve known don’t feel a need to justify their faith. It’s mostly the more liberal, less literally-minded folks (Biblically speaking) who find it useful as an accommodation of faith and science.
“Standard Creationism” is also known as “special creation”; this concept centers around the belief that all species (or kinds, or whatever) were specially created in their current forms by a divine entity (e.g., God). Some creationists will accept that natural selection may occur, but it does not alter the “essence” of any “kind”.
Intelligent Design does accept that evolution via natural selection can and does occur, but also claims that some physical structures, behaviors, systems, interactions, or other biological traits are too complex to have formed by the accumulated action of natural selection. Such traits must have come into being all at once, thus must have been “designed”, or essentially “created”.
Ultimately, then, the difference between the two is one of scale. The creationist believes entire organisms were created, the IDist believes that specific traits were created.
I think I see what you’re getting at. Thank you.
I don’t think that “Intelligent Design” has a single meaning to everybody.
Note that many, many proponents of “standard” Creationism have latched onto the ID term, and use it interchangably. Others believe that ID is the “scientific proof” of standard Creationism (and a direct refutation of ANY natural selection). Still others make the distinction that Darwin’s Finch pointed out.
The only core element I see that’s common to all of the ID people is the belief that the statement “Complexity MUST be created by intelligence” is a scientific argument, is true, and requires that humans must have been designed by “a designer,” not necessarily–but almost always assumed to be–the Christian God.
Poke over to GD on pretty much any day for neverending discussions about whether this last belief is true or not. Just don’t expect information to be exchanged; the forces on each side are pretty well entrenched over there.
Oh, I have my opinion on the subject, but this is GQ, so such discussions are inapropriate.
I was only asking because, since there’s a debate about ID going on lately, it made me curious if it was the same old “we should teach creationism along side evolution” debate, or if it was slightly different. Turns out, it’s slightly different.
Thanks to you, and the other posts, I have a fairly decent grasp on the subject now. Thanks.
I suspect that TimeWinder is correct that the phrase has begun to diffuse into general circulation with multiple meanings. Originally, it was a specific (pseudo-)scientific exploration of gaps in current evolutionary knowledge that were “filled” by positing a “God done it” explanation. More recently, a few people (notably Austrian, (Viennese), Cardinal Christoph Schonborn) have latched onto the phrase when describing theistic evolution, thereby muddying the waters. (It is still not entirely clear whether Cardinal Schonbrun was actually using the term “Intelligent Design” in its original meaning or whether he got tripped up by a translation issue from German to English–although his remarks in English were pretty much off target regardless of his understanding of the term.)