I am admittedly non-committal about accepting the current incarnation of ID theory. Whether it is sufficient as an explanatory research program or whether it will morph into a more fruitful line of inquiry remains to be seen. What should appear obvious, at least to anyone who hasn’t built a plausibility structure that excludes design explanations, is that a design inference is the best possible explanation for a systematic and coherent explanation of the physical universe. From the creation of the universe to the development of consciousness in humans, the role of a designer seems to be readily apparent. All it takes is a willingness to look at the evidence objectively.
Naturalism, on the other hand, is a plausibility structure for the near-sighted. Only by squinting, focusing on details, and ignoring the periphery can it be considered an adequate explanation. Pay close attention to microevolution but ignore the origins of life. Examine random fluctuations in astrophysics but don’t ask what was behind the Big Bang. And whenever the anthropic principle or the language-like structure of the genetic code is pointed out, wave hands wildly to distract attention. Is it any wonder that purely naturalistic explanations are losing their credibility with the general public?