In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.
But it is a
failed science, since it repeatedly identifies as having been designed things which we know not to have been designed.
Whereas the successful science of archaelogy correctly identifies natural productions as not having been designed.
On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants.
Or alternatively: "On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant doesn't have a genome nor reproduce with variation. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants."
You notice how this is rubbish?
We know that organisms are not the same as manufacturing plants in every respect. In particular, we know that they have the capacity to evolve.
The notion that if two things are similar in some respect they are similar in some other respect is not science, nor logic, nor within the bounds of common sense, nor anything but a device for reaching false conclusions when you have no real arguments to back you up.
The fact that ID seeks to base itself on this childish error in logic proves beyond doubt that it is not science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.