The ID debate has been a victory and defeat at the same time. But it did challenge the reign of darwinian natural selection where the science establishment proved incapable. Amazing, but true. I can easily acknowldege the reality of ‘design’, in some sense, but the whole category of ‘intelligent’ design has confused the issue all over again. It is perfectly possible to redefine the term ‘intelligent’ to refer to things that ‘seem’ intelligently designed, but unless that is made clear, we are back in the realm of creationism. To be fair, any science that can’t explain evolution can’t banish creationism, save on the grounds of the nature of its exemplars, often incompetent Bible Belt creationists.
The point here is that we can’t explain what produces seeming ‘design’ in nature. But it is not likely to be the intervention of an ‘intelligent designer’, as far as we know, and with the evolution of man being put in a separate category.
In any case the issue of ‘design’ won’t go away: the examples of complex machines have produced idiocy in darwinists trying to defend their fundamentalism. Clearly these entities show design, and we therefore don’t know as yet how they arose.