[Friend of thunder]

Yes, and that's preciesely the problem. If it was merely a philosophical outlook, then there would be nothing wrong with it.

This is the part I do not understand. If, life the universe and everything, is the result of a Creator – as opposed to the random collision of atoms – is that not, at some level, a scientific fact? If the supernatural exists than science must be able to explain it.

Or is it specific aspects of ID that you object to?

[Dimensio]

If the supernatural exists than science must be able to explain it.

Science is the study of the natural and only the natural. Anything supernatural is outside of the explanatory power of science by definition.

[curiosity]

If the supernatural exists than science must be able to explain it.

No, because science can only deal with the natural.

Or is it specific aspects of ID that you object to?

Those too. For instance, the claim that "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems could not have evolved. That claim is simply false.

But my stongest objections to it are theological. The god of ID is an incompetent engineer, who is constantly coming up with new, flawed designs and then scrapping them.

It's also claiming that God is constantly performing "signs" in his tickering with life. That borders on blasphemy.

That is NOT the God of the Bible.