A Typical ID argument
”The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. (This is the disclaimer that is designed to overcome Edwards vs. Aquilard) Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day. ( Note that no evidence is offered)
What is "design"? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. The scientific question is how we detect design. This can be done in various ways, but design can most easily be inferred for mechanical objects. While walking through a junkyard you might observe separated bolts and screws and bits of plastic and glass, most scattered, some piled on top of each other, some wedged together. Suppose you saw a pile that seemed particularly compact, and when you picked up a bar sticking out of the pile, the whole pile came along with it. When you pushed on the bar it slid smoothly to one side of the pile and pulled an attached chain along with it. The chain in turn yanked a gear which turned three other gears which turned a red-and-white striped rod, spinning it like a barber pole. You quickly conclude that the pile was not a chance accumulation of junk, but was designed, was put together in that order by an intelligent agent, because you see that the components of the system interact with great specificity to do something.”
ID evidence is non-existent. The entire argument is anecdotal and emotional. This is to be expected because the ID movement is a LEGAL strategy and not a sincere effort in scientific enquiry. ID’ers accept the Biblical story of creation and use ID as a subterfuge to introduce Biblical Creationism into public schools. In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States held that teaching Creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. To circumvent this, ID was created. The fraud was exposed in a federal trial Kitzmiller vs. the Dover School District.
But all that is beside the point. Given that most people will never make a penny off of their understanding of creationism, evolution or ID, the ongoing creationism versus evolution feud is nothing more than the following. It is an example of secularists who have managed to lever a politically correct perversion of the 1st Amendment to keep overzealous Christians from pirating government power so that they can cram their religous beliefs down everybody's throats.
That's the way that secularists see the situation anyway, in my opinion.