One More Reason Why ID Is Not Religion
It should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of science and philosophy that intelligent design theory is not inherently religious in nature. The way most proponents define it, it should be considered science with philosophical implications. It could also be considered related to the teleological argument in philosophy with scientific data as its basis.
This article from the NY Times provides another possible explanation for the design of the universe that cannot be considered "religious" in nature:
Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.
But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.
This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.