[elfman2]

"ID doesn't even qualify as philosophy. It's just a bunch of conjectures based on logical fallacies. And don't disparage the discipline of philosophy. You couldn't have science without it. "

I haven’t though this through, but God has been the subject of debated throughout the progression of philosophy, and divine intervention is historically and logically consistent with that. And since God is not disproved, ID is not a “logical fallacy”. God and ID may or may not be unimpressive as a philosophy, but their relevance is well grounded.

[curiosity]

ID, as defined by the Discovery Institute and its major proponents, is the postulate that certain features of life could not have evolved and therefore must have been directly created by God.

This conjecture is based on the logical fallacies of irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

One of the problems with ID is that it is an extremely confusing term.

ID: bad science, bad theology, bad philosophy, and on top of it all, bad philology.