But only a fool would believe all of the controversies you listed have been completely settled. Geologists are still learning the shape and content of the earth, and what would you bet there are still a few learned arguments over how to go about it and exactly what shape the earth is now, and how exactly to determine its mass, all the while using the INTELLIGENT DESIGN in their minds and the INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED tools they have for observation.
It is the duty of science to challenge all of the above and more; to visit the facts again and again, and "challenge the status quo."
What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment.
Well, I suppose you can sit there at your computer and tell us what is, and what is not, possible, but all we can can do is ask: How do you know? And please tell us, while you're at it, how all the intelligence and design in the world could appear without an intelligent designer. The question is very simple, but I have yet to see anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution answer it without equivocation. It is beneath their "dignity."
No, ID is not a "non-credible" idea. It is an idea open for inquiry just like anything else in the universe. But you would make a "non-credible" scientist for declaring outright what is, or is not, possible.
You encapsulate what is wrong with ID and why it isn't science. You go about asking questions the wrong way.
A scientist, confronted with the enormous task you have preesented, would ask, "Is there some piece of this puzzle that I can place? Is there some evidence I can find that supports or refutes the hypothesis? Is there some process I can analyze to see if it can occur without intervention?
And after 150 years or so, and tens of thousands of scientists or so, you gain confidence in your paradigm.