ID even misrepresents ID. After Behe's comments in Dover, no on knows what ID is.
Try reading all the conflicting theories and evolving theories evolutionists continue to make. Then perhaps you can talk about I.D. Also, try reading Behe's book. I don't think the Dover Trial was a scientific lecture series but rather the usual suspects attempting to silent any scientist who might actually dare to assert irreducible complexity. How dare anyone use scientific research and facts to discredit our philosophy!
Dembski's definition seems as coherent as any: " ID is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
I assume that Dembski's definition is what the ID supporters are defending.