Intelligent Design as a valid science

After studying this topic for a while in school, I came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design (ID) wasn't the *best* theory to describe (and predict) the proliferation of complex organic lifeforms. Evolution works better in this capacity.

However, I also noted that ID was a valid field of study, when applied to other things. For a couple of examples: Detective work. The process of sorting through the data of a person's death and trying to determine whether it was accidental or planned is in essence trying to determine whether the situation was caused by an intelligence. Also, SETI. The attempt to find data that looks as though it was created by an intelligence is the primary focus of this project.

So, as a field of science, ID is totally valid. The process of determining whether a state of affairs was created or influenced by intelligence, or not.

I see people on both sides of the fence getting caught up in language. Creationists will denounce evolution without understanding what it means, and non-creationists will denounce ID without understanding what it means (only how it has been applied, however poorly). It is important to not get caught up in name-calling and to really examine the theories and how they are applied.

Yes, evolution (both the gradual and punctuated equilibria models) is the best way to describe and predict how organisms are the way they are. But just because ID was used to prop up the arguments of creationists, doesn't make ID itself an invalid scientific field.