I think your taking my initial statement a little too seriously. That or your being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument. I'll grant that my initial statement was poorly worded.
The poor wording of your initial statement improperly conveyed both your inention and seriousness. Its all your fault
But at least by now my intention should be clear. Specifically Intelligent Design is a concept based on faith or belief (if there's a distinction).
In general, ID
is what you say it is but it doesn't
have to be.
And as a concept, I don't think it is based on faith and belief. I think it ends up falling on faith and belief, when the arguments are shown to be invalid, but I don't think that faith and belief are the basis of the arguments.
Accordingly forming a logical argument in support of it is going to be an uphill battle at best.
An argument can easily be logical and false. I think you mean a
valid argument, which not only depends on the logic but also the truth of the premises.
The problem with ID is not just their logic, its their fallacious premises.
Consequently proponents of ID tend to be left with emotional or spiritual appeals in place of arguments grounded in logic.
Because of the lack of truth in their premises, not because of the lack of logic in their arguments.