I just ran into this excellent article in the New Yorker: Devolution: Why Intelligent Design Isn't by H. Allen Orr. I took the following out of the article inasmuch as I think it gets to the heart of the ID ridiculousness, to wit it has not generated any true original research or "findings" of any sort:

It’s also hard to view it as a real research program. Though people often picture science as a collection of clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced countless important experiments (let’s re-create a natural species in the lab—yes, that’s been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns (that’s why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). In the nearly ten years since the publication of Behe’s book, by contrast, I.D. has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology. As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics.

What is it that's so hard for those in Kansas, Delaware, and recently in New York, not to mention my buddy highlighted below, Rick Santorum (Santorum is quoted as informing us that "... intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." Rick needs to take some science classes, though clearly his lack of appreciation for what's science or not hasn't prevented him from attaining high political office), to understand here regarding what's science and what's not science? If you can't test it, if you can't design experiments to support it, if you can't predict things with it, IT'S NOT SCIENCE. Simply saying, "It's too complex to be explained by evolution, and you can't provide a complete explanation anyway, so therefore God did it" (I'm sorry, an intelligent designer, but I'm simply being reductionist here as any argument for ID has to lead to God) --- back during the times of the Black Death we didn't understand what was going on then, and God was used as an explanation --- fortunately people didn't buy it then, leading us to the Renaissance. But people like Santorum, et al, want to instill a New Age Dark Ages in our schools, but people seem to be buying it this time. Arrrrrrrrghhhh!

Ok, I'll stop ranting.