I think another reason I am an ID proponent is because of the stances the ‘critics’ of ID take against it. They often go against my sense of justice and fair play. Take for example two recent posts here at PS by @swamidass.
In one he seems to be claim that two threads here at PS consist of an ID argument and that the argument in each is an apologetic for God.
I think this is helping me better understand where Joshua is coming from if he thinks ID is making arguments that are supposed to demonstrate the existence of God. If he’s not making that claim I hope he will explain himself and why he offered these two threads as examples.
When people claim that an argument, which in my mind has nothing to do with God, is actually engaging in apologetics, and bad apologetics at that, I think it actually ends up, in my case at least, working against the arguer and pushing me towards greater support for ID.
In another thread Joshua made another claim that I also deem to be mistaken:
Where has Behe ever stated that IC1 systems “cannot evolve by natural mechanisms.” There was a rather lengthy conversation here on just this very issue that seems to have escaped Joshua’s attention.
I think it would help if people would stop trying to turn ID arguments against the Darwinian mechanism into arguments against evolution as a whole and against natural processes as a whole. It just serves to harden my stance on the side of ID rather than weaken it. If it matters. 
To Joshua’s credit he want back and edited his previous comment.