I generally believe that Intelligent Design is simply unscientific, not so much because there's evidence against it, but rather because it doesn't propose an objective scientific question to begin with.
There's one aspect about Intelligent Design that shows my point, and I wanted to hear any creationist responses to it. The issue is this: any and every argument that I've ever heard in favor of Intelligent Design could also be made in favor of Human Design.
The argument goes something like this: Logical systems, languages, and "specified complexity" are only known to come from humans. Since we see these aspects within life systems, we can therefore conclude that humans designed life.
The basic defenses of Intelligent Design work here as well:
Argument: "That doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't explain where those humans came from."
Defense: "My 'Human Design' theory doesn't address that. It simply shows that life was designed by humans."
Argument: "There's no evidence of humans on earth 3.5 billion years ago."
Defense: "The complexity of life is excellent evidence of humans on earth during this time."
Argument: "Humans today cannot design life."
Defense: "That makes no comment on humans in the past."
Etc.
This shows in several ways why I consider Intelligent Design to be lacking in the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis. Thoughts?