Missing the Point

I was reading a long article in USA today this morning about schools facing the question of ID vs. Evolution as the school year begins. The article attempts to frame the discussion for readers by, among other things, defining the theories as follows:

"Intelligent Design: Some biological structures, such as DNA instructions, are so complex that they could not occur as a result of evolution and must be the work of an intelligent designer. No answer as to who or what that may be."

Is that a sufficient definition of Intelligent Design? It's good, but from what little reading I've done on ID so far, I would say that it is insufficient. Yes, the argument that life is too complex to be accounted for is part of the story - but it's the negative argument. How can you prove that it's too complex?

I would, and ID proponents have, state the definition slightly differently. I would argue that the complexity of life shows evidence of intelligent design by the nature of the information encoded into it. Information implies a design. Design implies a designer. That's the positive argument.

To only argue the negative is to miss the point. Information, not complexity, is the point. The program of your DNA is information.

The article of course goes on to give a standard definition of evolution, as a theory that "..species evolve over billions of years through natural selection, inheriting small variations that improve individual's abilities to survive and reproduce."

Did the article leave it at that and let you make your own conclusions? Of course not. The author had to immediately add this little caveat:

The theory of evolution is backed up by 150 years of research. White House science advisor John Marburger called it a "cornerstone of modern biology".

Oh, as long as we're not taking sides.