Briefly, Stanford molecular biologist Emile Zuckerkandl has a review on design and biocomplexity out in the journal Gene, including an evaluation of “irreducible complexity,” and finds that “molecular biology makes ‘intelligent design’ look foolish.”
Before any intelligence can appear, a world endowed with the potential for being experienced as a body of phenomena has to be existent. Indeed, if there is to be an intelligence, there first has to be something intelligible. Hence, when an intelligence is present, “creation” must already have taken place.
The paper doesn’t just talk about the mediocrity of ID though – it spends a lot of time explaining complexity as a natural process, both in and out of the realm of molecular biology and genetics.
Similarly, PZ at Pharyngula takes a look at Hugh Ross’s book Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars, and finds it lacking in testable models (or for that matter, evidence that’s not anecdotal or ad hoc) and basic logic.
Ross’s claims aren’t testable. They don’t even make much sense. I don’t think I need to waste any money or time on his ridiculous book.
And yet, that’s the typical creationist canard.
As Zuckerkandl stated, an act of Design is synonomous with Special Creation.