You can have a real impact if you pick one side of the argument. You can’t simultaneously argue:
Arguing both is not tenable. It is not consistent, and allows ID to be opportunistic with your claims, and atheists rightly feel it is not fair.
How about just arguing alongside me for #1?
Excellent observation! And this is exactly why I so effortlessly reject the I.D. belief that God’s involvement in nature can be detected by science! Science cannot trace divine intentions. It can only detect, at the most, whether the rain that falls on the arid farmland was a natural phenomenon or not.
The dinosaur-killing asteroid can be determined to be natural … but Science cannot tell whether it was “poofed” into existence just beyond Jupiter … or if it was incipient at the very moment of creation!
If God promotes evolution by making massive changes in the Earth’s ecosystems, at the right time for the right amount of time, how would we ever know that? A branch of hominids is known to have emerged to exploit the increasing gaps in open land between giant pockets of forest or jungle.
Without neighboring trees for brachiation, hominids had to develop other ways of finding food and defending against predators - - for there were no nearby trees always at the ready for refuge… or for lunch. I would say that this was a specific part of God’s plans for future humanity - - descending from these brave hominids.
But I will never think that Science could prove that it was God’s plan.
‘Repeatable’ is not a necessary criterion for science.