I shall respond to this with a question:
"Would the existence of the electronic device you used to post that comment be best explained by :
A. Its existence was the result of natural forces and matter acting upon other matter over a period of time with no intelligent mind superintending the process.
Or..
B. Its existence was the result of the creative mind of the engineer who designed it and made it?
Surely, you will answer "B".
But if you answer "B", then you are unknowingly agreeing with the concept underlying I.D. arguments. That concept is that design is evidence of a designer.
No sincere academic would deny this very simple premise. And notice that the word "evidence" is used here. Evidence must always be interpreted by each individual "weighing" the evidence.
So the actual question is not: "is design evidence of a designer?" That is patently obvious. But the question is: "is there (what we would refer to as) "design" in the universe that cannot be sufficiently explained by utilizing a purely naturalistic explanation.
Obviously you would say no. You would say that everything that exists is not the handiwork of a creator but that our universe is simply what "is" and as such "just exists" as a brute fact.
But this is the very reason why your argument fails as a valid argument in philosophy.
Throughout this line of thought is the assumption that naturalism/atheism is true. But this is never proven. It "begs the question" for naturalism.
In order for this line to work, one would have to first give a compelling argument for believing atheism is true. But the strongest argument one can use for the non existence of God would be the argument from evil/suffering.
But several plausible theodicies handle this objection.
As long as you are begging the question, you will never be able to formulate a sound argument against I.D.
I'm pretty sure I.D. is either unsubstantiated or unlikely, or both.
Unless you want to get into some obscure philosophical issue, one assumes that we exist, and that we're not all living in a dream world. And so, yes, people exist and a man did design the computer I am using, but I didn't write otherwise. Nor was it written that nothing is designed ever, just that (or it was meant, anyway) humans themselves need not have been designed by something else which in this case is most simply classified as 'superhuman,' be it a classical religious deity or the slightly less personal entity or super-designer, in a sense, of I.D.
Or more simply: I.D. is supremely unsubstantiated, much like any claim of a deity or other godly entity.
And while people are (apparently) inclined to connect their own moral beliefs to the question of whether I.D. is true, or connect it to some grand conflict between religion itself and atheism, the two need not be connected, nor is the solving of any of these conflicts/questions prerequisites to judge I.D. itself.
That all being said, while the most sure objection against I.D. is simply it's insubstantial nature, there is obviously the potential (as always) for an argument directly against it, even if it's more difficult. One need simply argue for some other way that people came about. Or argue on some possible path or origin (not really the second, though) of/for the universe, if that's the topic.
Ultimately while the answer may not be known, any suggestion of such that does not involve a vague 'designer' need not be 'begging the question,' so long as anything at all is known about the topic in hand. Arguments for an alternative can simply be made, and the alternative compared to the original.
Obviously.
P.S. of theodicies and moralizing I will say that a theodicy is simply an attempt to make a theological conception more airtight, or to make it less contradictory, where it might otherewise seem so. A theodicy is a more complex version of some well known or long established bit of theology, with the intent of reducing internal contradictions that may arise from more simpler forms of established theological doctrine. Or, in other words, a moral defense of the deity with regards to it's power.
I'm sure you know all this, but the point is that the act of justifying one aspect of theology with regards to another aspect is irrelevant to the question of whether something exists or has happened in the real world.
And so, to repeat something written earlier, no the best arguments against God are not theodicies, but rather alternative explanations in their own right.
The best explanations against God do not involve theology, for the greatest purpose of theology is to justify the existence of God at all costs, not to find truth.
