For an analogous case, consider Lee Smolin's "Life of the Cosmos" hypothesis. That posits natural selection between universes - and black holes as the birth canal for new universes.

That seems literally incredible - since black holes have no insides. However, the rest of the logic of Smolin's hypothesis does not depend critically on the origin of the new universes - so if you replace "black holes" with "basement universes" the hypothesis becomes much more credible.

This discussion over whether creationism and ID are distinguishable confuses principle with practice. It also conflates the public tenets of a movement with the views of the members of the movement.

Are creationism and ID distinguishable in principle? Yes. I think this is the point that several people here are trying to make.

Are creationism and ID distinguishable in practice? I'm highly skeptical, since as you also observe, ID seems to be a stripped-down obfuscation of creationism.

Looking at their public tenets, ID and creationism are not interchangeable, because any day some folks could come along who believe in ID but not in creationism. However, until such folks come along, I think it would be safe to say that IDists and creationists are empirically interchangeable, even if ID and creationism are not. Is there anyone out there who believes in ID but not creationism?

P.S... Scientology is a potential example of IDists who are not creationists, because this says that "With respect to evolution, Scientology holds that life forms have evolved, but that a much greater force is directing those changes", though Hubbard's views seem far too muddled to say for sure. At least, Scientologists do seem to believe that humans contain a "genetic entity" that has progressed through many stages, including Clam and Sloth, before ending up in humans, and that aliens have caused "incidents" in this process. So it sounds like Scientologists would agree with a broad formulation of ID (directed evolution), even though they are not involved in the ID or creationism movements.

It is different - according to Behe himself:

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).

Wrong....

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/

Again the profound ignorance you guys have of the ideas you disagree with comes out. Its a common mistake to say they are the same with different terms look at the actual view points and you find they are not.

Educate yourself...

Creationism: based on the Bible and the Christian God

Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity

Seriously I don't agree with it but at least before I go off half-cocked I actually bother to educate myself.

Communism and socialism?