The main problem with ID as generally proposed is that to be a scientific theory it needs to begin with a scientific general theory of intelligence, which is never posited by the advocates whose main argumentation seems to be based on a priori probability estimates which appear to make the account given by neo-Darwinism wildly improbable. As a firm Popperian, I regard any reliance on a priori probability estimates as unscientific, since by their very nature they are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. (I also think most positions taken in polemical advocacy of neo-Darwinism, along with a great deal evolutionary biology proposed as serious science -- the sort of things Steven Jay Gould dismisses as "just so stories" -- fail to reformulate the random-mutation and natural-selection paradigm in a falsifiable form, and thus Popper's original critique of Darwinism as non-scientific, rather than his "recantation", still applies to them.)
Somewhat amusingly, if one takes as a general theory of intelligence the notion of "intelligent agent" proposed in turn-of-the-21st-century work on AI by among others Marcus Hutter, one can reasonably conclude that neo-Darwinism, far from being contrary to intelligent design, actually implies intelligent design, since the biosphere in the neo-Darwinian account can reasonably be argued to have the properties of an intelligent agent in the sense of Hutter.
“...one can reasonably conclude that neo-Darwinism, far from being contrary to intelligent design, actually implies intelligent design, since the biosphere in the neo-Darwinian account can reasonably be argued to have the properties of an intelligent agent in the sense of Hutter.”
Ah, but isn’t that circular reasoning? The biosphere would have to preexist itself in order to be the intelligent designer of the biological components that make up the biosphere.