Needs a bit of analysis, there. How so? That one I refrained from satire, totally.
#2 doesn't come close.
Unsupported assertion. It's Dembski on truth serum.
#3 is really on the edge, but not a major factor.
No, that one's not a biggie. But that's about all the quivvers in the ID arrow.
OK, if you include Johnson and Wells, they drag in a bunch of recycled creationist stuff, trying hard to throw out all the YEC material but occasionally forgetting. One or the other (Johnson?) attacks radiometric dating, for instance. Why do that if you accept the age of the Earth?
The expanded version could thus include:
I notice you didn't answer my counter-challenge. A chance to demonstrate your acumen, and you delined?
You still have not gotten the ID position correct - why should I answer your challenge when you have yet to answer mine? Try focusing on your first bullet, but try to get it right this time.