A major problem with the Intelligent Design argument is not in the defense of ID, but in the blanket rejection of all of “Darwinism”, even when large parts of it are reasonable and even obvious, *and not in inherent conflict with ID*. That is, the rejection needs to be parsed to *just* those parts of “Darwinism” that *are* objectionable.
A “Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” argument is destined to fail.
For example, natural selection exists everywhere, and is an obvious *abstract* of what is taking place. Two boxers fight, and one wins. That is natural selection. One girl is healthy and attractive, so gets a good quality husband and father to her children; another girl is an unhealthy, ugly and mean lesbian, whose future is a dead end. That is natural selection as well.
There is nothing objectionable about natural selection *as such*. However, when someone wishes to interpolate and extrapolate from natural selection, is where ID can point out the glaring problems. That is, that “winners and losers” exist is obvious, but any sports fan will tell you that guessing which one will win and which one will lose is not easy at all.
“the blanket rejection of all of “Darwinism””
Nobody actually does this though, except ignorant lay people who aren’t really involved in the debate. Certainly not anyone in the field of ID.