Speaking only for myself, I am not hostile to Intelligent Design theory. If it brought you in from the cold, good! However, I do have some things against it, if I am allowed to paraphrase our Lord without appearing too presumptuous.
I’ll start with a series of questions. Why are ID theorists so insistent on demonstrating the existence of design and, by inference, a designer, rather than the existence of God? Why do they scrupulously avoid any mention of God in their books, writings, and blogs? Why are ID theorists so insistent on being recognized as “legitimate science” rather than “mere philosophy”? Why is the Discovery Institute, the self-described “hub of the Intelligent Design movement,” pursuing a political agenda to change science curricula in states across the country?
The answer to all of these questions flows from the last one. The only reason that ID insists on being labelled “science” instead of “philosophy” and scrupulously avoids mentioning God in favor of “design” and “intelligence” is so that it can be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to “atheistic evolution.”
In my view, the hostility toward ID would disappear tomorrow if its theorists would drop their politically motivated goal of calling it “science” in order to teach a watered-down version of creation in public school classrooms.
Your mileage may vary.