More on ID
So, I think I need to revise my position a li'l bit, as per two posts ago. I think I'm not at all affiliated with Intelligent Design, at least not when it's defined as: "the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it," (Laurie Goodstein, NY Times National section, Aug 31).

I'm going to go back now, and explain that my religious theory is not, in any way, Intelligent Design, (Caps or not). And really, now that I have the chance to think about it, I realize that it's the "Design" part of the phrase that really bugs me. I find it strangely unfulfilling, thinking that life has been designed towards a specific end. Here's why:

My perspective has it that humanity and G-d are involved in a contract with each other (and there's precedent for this, there are human-divine contracts all over the Torah). We agreed to be G-d's partners in creation, helping in the day-to-day activities that progress the world. In return, we were given absolute free will (within the bounds of physics, etc) and mastery over Earth, though our ability to utilize it remains constrained to our level of scientific understanding.

So Intelligent Design, in one respect, contradicts the idea of free will: if there is already an end-point established, a goal for creation, then we lose our ability to choose because G-d's immediate intervention will inevitably lead us there.
In another respect, it violates the mastery we were given, because at some point the miracles of G-d and the miracles of man's science will start bumping into each other. In other words, once we obtained the ABILITY to cross-breed and manipulate genes, we would be rubbing up against G-d's alleged activity of picking and choosing which mutations are advantageous. It's kind of a too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen thing.

Strict creationism, by the way, is right out: the idea that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" doesn't stand up in any arena, scientific OR religious. Observation of, say, a new breed of dog would easily indicate the possibility of new bloodlines, and by extrapolation the creation of new species. Clearly, living things alter, and have altered. In a religious mode, if everything is now as it was created, and it was created "perfect" (through whatever definition of perfect), then messianic times should have begun instantly with the creation of the world, and continued on from there.

And, a last thought: If there is not a pre-defined goal, which has been intelligently designed, where do messianic times, (the World to Come) fit into this? It depends- I can't speak for the Apocolyptic view, where an end-time is suddenly foisted on the earth, leading to a new and radically different messianic period (and if that's the case, why bother developing life on Earth towards that point- why not just make it start?)
Jewishly, though, there is room for the vaguer goal. Jewish messianic thought is organic and bottom-up. The Messiah functions as, essentially, confirmation that we've done a good job.

Essentially, G-d is not forcing us towards any one right path, but has given us the tools and the ability to seek a harmony with the world and with G-d. Ideas of time here get complicated, but essentially the "goal" is to stretch the momentary time that humans inhabit into the timeless harmony G-d inhabits (not mutually exclusive, but this is a conceptual construct), and G-d is our partner as a motivator, a consultant, and a way to evaluate our own path.
Or, put another way (because in Judaism there's always another way to put things) G-d has a general idea of where he'd like creation to get to, but the process of actually getting there is up to us, because we are the moment-to-moment side of the partnership.

Wrapping it all up, then, Intelligent Design conflicts with the way I roll, which is more like Helping the World to Enlighten Itself.
I probably didn't explain it well, so please post questions or comments.