This is the fundamental flaw in the intelligent design theory.
The problem with ID is not that it may or may not fit observation. That is not the issue. Only the ID and creationist idiots think that; and largely because they don't have a clue as to what science is.
To wit:
Science isn't defined by outcome. It is defined by process.
Therefore, ID may or may not be "obvious". I don't care to argue the point and it is irrelevant. The issue is that ID does not meet the definition of science because it has not followed the fundamental process of science.
I don't doubt that there are many flaws in evolution. I don't doubt that more will be found. But evolution is science by definition, because the process of deriving it was scientific.
"But evolution is science by definition, because the process of deriving it was scientific."
I don't think the impact of Annie Darwin's death on Charles Darwin was part of the scientific process. I do think, however, that given Annie was 10 years old, and that Charles Darwin adored her at the time of her death, that Charles may have decided that hating God and writing him out of existence was easier than trying to make sense of the loss of a child.
Isn't it interesting that the founders of "Modern Science" were, for the most part, creationists. You might want to check a little science history. And you also might want to research what ID scientists have really said, not what others to say about it. You might be surprised.
> Science isn't defined by outcome. It is defined by process. <
True, and part of that process is that your hypothesis has to be testable/repeatable. How do either Evolutionary Theory or ID (or the Big Bang Theory) meet that qualification? Seems to me they don't and we're talking about science-based conjecture and not science.
It also seems to me that we should distinguish between natural selection (which one can demonstrate by noting the development of anti-biotic resistant microbes) and the origen of species, which is unknowable and beyond the realm of science.