The ID Fallacy

I have tried researching Dembski, Behe, and Johnson, yet can only find a single type of argument, the same fallacy.It is generally referred to as "Argument from Ignorance", but I would like to expand on that phrase.Every ID argument to date relies on the same seemingly innocent premise: the choices for origin are naturalism, chance, or design. This is the basis of Dembski's explanatory filter.Granted, this premise is true.The fallacy occurs because in every argument, regardless of how many numbers or words are used to mask the fact, Intelligent Design assumes that "Evolution" is synonymous for "Naturalism".If you could show that there is no natural way or way by chance for Irreducibly Complex organisms can occur, then yes, the organism/organelle was designed.However, Evolution is not Naturalism. Evolution is simply one theory. If disproven, then all that has been shown is that Evolution, not naturalism, is not an option. So the filter fails along with all other "one or the other" claims.An example of this fallacy is applying it to before the discovery of genetics. How could Evolutionary Theory describe heredity? It couldn't be chance, and Evolution couldn't explain it. Therefore, because Evolution and chance are not options, heredity is passed down by a designer.We now know that is nonsense, but how is this different from the current claim on Irreducible Complexity?

RAZD- you are right on every account, but you're doing what almost every other anti-ID person does. Give an excellent rebuttal, but not one that can understood by the general public. We say "argument from ignorance", and among ourselves know exactly how. But I think of the reasons ID is at large is because no one takes the time to simply state how it is an argument from Ignorance.