In­tel­li­gent De­sign is a the­o­ry that kind of fills in the gaps in Dar­win's the­o­ry. I un­der­stand the con­cept is that some things in na­ture ap­pear to be so in­ge­nious that it very hard to be­lieve it just evolved into that with­out the help of some­one/some­thing think­ing about the de­sign of it. IMHO the ma­jor flaw in this con­cept is that the mind to which na­ture ap­pears is also part of evo­lu­tion. The ap­pear­ance of na­ture can't be more in­ge­nious than the mind it­self, so if the mind is just ran­dom crap formed by evo­lu­tion, all oth­er ran­dom crap ap­pear­ing to it could eas­i­ly be mis­judged as in­ge­nious. It doesn't work the oth­er way around: for­get that you have a brain, use your brain to judge some kind of mirable as be­ing In­tel­li­gent De­sign, claim there is such a thing, claim your brain is In­tel­li­gent De­sign too... You just pulled your­self out of the swamp by your boot­straps, (ready to kill and steal more oil?)

But I could be wrong, which kind of proves my point ;-)