"If "ID is philosophy", fine."
ID includes criticism of the current philosophy of science.
"Teach it in philosophy class."
Then why don't we teach evolution in a philosophy class? The point being that cosmology is based on philosophical assumptions. An evolutionary cosmology is just as philosophical as ID, it just doesn't admit to it.
"ut science does not assume that if we don't have perfect knowledge of how something works, then it must be the result of a deity."
Nor does ID. In fact, if we don't have a good knowledge of how something works, the design inference is not usable. The Design Inference is only usable when there is a very good knowledge on the material processes involved.
Of course, if we don't have good knowledge about how evolution works, how can intelligent guidance be excluded from it? This would just be a philosophical preference included by people with a philosophical axe to grind, not an inference from the data. If we _do_ have good knowledge, then the explanatory filter can be used to decide between design and non-design.
"Such a philosophy is death to science. Because if God did everything that we can't explain, then where's the motivation to find out what we don't know?"
This is the most ludicrous concepts I've ever heard. (a) noone says that God did everything that we can't explain. Noone. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Complete straw man. As to the motivation, science got its start with religious motivation -- to determine how God set up the world. In fact, it was the assumptions of a reliable, understandable God that gave us the faith to believe that the world was also reliable and understandable. So, contrary to be against inquiry, believing in God creating was the entire foundation for inquiry to begin with.
Let's take young-earth creationism. Do the scientists in young-earth creationism just say "oh, God did it, let's stop understanding it". No. Instead, they seek diligently to determine what it is that God created, which processes should be attributed to him and which to material causes, and what insight that we can learn from the way that God set up nature.
This is the most ludicrous concepts I've ever heard. (a) noone says that God did everything that we can't explain. Noone. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Complete straw man.
Must have hit a nerve. So I'll grind it in a bit.
The iconic explanation of ID is Behe's Flagellum "irreducible complexity" argument. Since science did not at the time have a good explanation for how the flagellum evolved, Behe made a philosophic argument that it was designed based solely on our then lack of knowledge. Had science accepted that argument, there would have been no work done to understand it's evolution. The research on flagellum evolution has since explained away Behe's argument, but like typical ideologues, the ID and creationism advocates don't recognize that they've lost that fight.
Behe was satisfied that he had the answer, based on a lack of knowledge. That provides motivation to halt further science.
ID is anti-science at it's core.
science got its start with religious motivation -- to determine how God set up the world.
Very true. But religion has abandoned acceptance of most of science purely on the basis of faith, not on evidence.
My particular theory is that faith has acted as a filter, dividing people between those who can understand abstract logic, vs. those who operate emotionally. Thus churches are filled with those who get teary eyed at the story of Christ dying for their sins, and have thus bought into a simplistic faith based explanation of their existence. Some denominations literally drive scientists from their memberships.
When science was beginning as an avocation, the acceptance of faith was nearly universal. But the population is now divided, and some denominations are taking advantage of that to radicalize the minds of their believers. I'm not comfortable with what that might do to western civilization in the long run.
By the way, it's "No one", not "Noone".