I am interested in examining the Intelligent Design debate. An instructor of mine insist that Intelligent Design could be defined not as an explaination of the origin of life, but as an explanation of current scientific advancement in the realm of genetic engineering (gene slicing, cloning, etc). Thus, the "theory" woould be applied to current and future practices and not the appearance of the first life forms. If the advocates of ID used such a definition, would the perceived incompatibility between ID and Evolution lessen?
Would shifting the definition of ID in this direction require too much of a sacrifice of the belief system underlying Intelligent Design?