1) What is the actual scientific theory of Intelligent Design? Is it simply, "Complexity implies design and design implies intelligence"?

Intelligent Design is the name given a series of tests to be applied to the natural world to determine the possibility or probability of the existence of intelligent design rather than time and chance via natural processes being the cause of some phenomena. It is not a theory in and of itself. There is the presupposition, however, that the possibility exists that naturalistic materialism may not be responsible for everything we are aware of.

I was always told ID was a "theory". William Dembski refers to it as such.

Here is a Dembski quote: "Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable." http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm I hope you understand my confusion, but realize it is not mine alone. In the quote above, Dembski clearly says that ID is a theory of origins and development. There seems to be a lack of cohesive structure to the ID movement from my perspective. This is the first time I'm learning that it is not a theory. (By the way, I do agree, it is not a theory.) Please tell me, what are the series of tests? I'm already familiar with Dembski's "explanatory filter" and not terribly impressed. What other tests are there? Can you point me to a web site?

While intelligent design may be predicated upon an observation stated as a theory, it is not a theory in and of itself. It perhaps can be best explained as an exploration. In essence, all that can happen at this point is to try to test the presupposition, or the original statement of "It seems to me that there is evidence of intelligent design..." through precise definition of the terminology used and examination of natural things through some kind of testing mechanism. A formal testing mechanism has been presented by Dembski. However there are others in operation: experience, as put forward by Behe, and observation from the wider view, as exemplified by Johnson. Clearly there are many others of repute and great intelligence involved in the ID movement, but perhaps these three are good examples of the three most common approaches to ID.

But if one finds something to be complex, and then finds that it seems to be complex for a reason, or a specificity, then one must consider the idea that it was planned to be that way -- or intelligently designed to do what it does.

Note: OK, so according to this person who speaks for Philip Johnson ID is not a theory, but according to Dembski it is. There is also no "series" of tests apparently. The "tests" for design can be summed up as follows:

1.) It seems mathematically impossible that it could have evolved -Dembski

2.) I can't imagine how it could have evolved -Behe

3.) It sure looks designed to me! -Johnson