These would be the faults I see as an atheist and scientist.
-
Subjectivity. When someone says that something looks designed that is their subjective opinion. Science needs empirical and objective data.
-
Limited by imagination. Behe and others claim that something can’t evolve because they can’t imagine it evolving. Reality isn’t limited to what humans can imagine.
-
Lack of positive evidence. ID is primarily driven by arguments against evolution. By contrast, the arguments for evolution never mention ID and are instead supported by positive evidence that supports the theory. ID does not have positive evidence to support it, and instead relies on rejection of all other theories in order to make ID more attractive, a sort of God of the Gaps argument.
-
ID is scientifically sterile. There is hardly, if any scientific research being done on ID. I am unaware of any scientific experiments being done now or in the past that directly tests ID. What experiments ID proponents have done try to test evolution, but not ID. Intelligent design just doesn’t lead to scientific research because it starts with the answer and ignores the questions.
Evolution knows as much about what needs to happen as a river knows about what path it needs to follow.