ID is based on the false dichotomy that by discrediting evolution, ID is confirmed. “ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution,” Even a scientifically illiterate person who is capable of spotting logical errors can point out the flaws of this argument.

IDs star witness Behe admitted that for ID to be considered as science, the definition would have to be stretched so much it would also include other pseudosciences like astrology, alchemy, phrenology, palmistry, and more.

The court in Kitzmiller v Dover concluded this:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:

(1)ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and

(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community”.