What I have a problem with is your continual assertions of what you aren't and what ID isn't. Anyone can pick up a book and find out the essential elements of evolution theory, which are descent with modification plus natural selection. The historical implication of evolution is that living things are descended from a common ancestor.
All scientific theories and laws have ranges of applicability. Gravity does not explain the behavior of objects of all sizes. The gas laws are applicable over a range of temperatures. Evolution operates on life; it does not explain the origin of life.
Now that I am on record, try stepping into the water. What do you believe?
2. ID ‘itself’ does not and should not attempt to explain the origin of the designer – this would be theology. But I, as an ‘individual’, do not believe that a ‘Being’, which is not made of matter and created time and space, needs to be created (or evolve). Again, this is theology.
3. Again, I am not dogmatic about this issue.
4. Admittedly, I don’t propose any other candidates. ID on the other hand allows for people to believe whatever they want, including the universe ‘itself’ being intelligent.
5. I do not see any reason to entirely abandon naturalism and in fact it must co-exist with ID as it has in the past. Looking at the history of science, it is science that has recently abandoned design. There was dogma in design but now there is dogma in its’ absence. Look, we know that nature ‘alone’ cannot do many things and we know nature alone can do many things. If we say it must only be design or only be nature, this is dogma. ‘Just so’ stories happen on both sides.
6. This is a good question. The fact is that biological science ‘is’ operating more and more from an engineering perspective without invoking the ‘why’ question (‘Why’ as in why would a designer do it this way). Ironically, the ‘why’ question is invoked by ‘individuals’ only to say, “What omnipotent designer would do this?” But many of the same items that the ‘designer’ is criticized for is entirely embraced as a wonderful factor for naturalism. Now why would someone (an ‘individual’) invoke the ‘why’ to only say, “If you believe in a designer than see here how ‘He’ is evil”. You see, within current science, naturalism is allowed to criticize not just ID – but theology.
Let me go a little further on this issue, naturalistic science obviously has free reign here as design did in the recent past. The scientific ‘heretic’ has switched roles though as the “crucify, stone, witch” now comes from naturalistic dogma. (and yes, I invoked theology here as it is now been presented as ‘ignorant’ – I see no reason to let this continue from a ‘naturalistic’ perspective)
I have laid my cards on the table and have asked no questions of you. Science searches for truth and I embrace this… But even science knows there is only one truth and not multiple truths to choose from. Again, this is where the individual steps in because the individual only knows truth from what they believe or want to believe (Conscience). Truth stands regardless.