Getting ID theory right instead of criticizing a made-up straw man would be a good start.
How could blind evolution arrange biochemical parts into complex functional wholes one small step at a time, as Darwin and his followers envision?
Daniel Reeves explains what ID really is — it’s not unlike detective work — and the central question ID seeks to answer.
Science doesn’t need methodological naturalism. It doesn’t need methodological theism, either.
Initially, I was pleased to find someone who might be an interesting new participant in the evolution debate.