Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History. He has criticized Intelligent Design as follows:
Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is. I don't know how it works. It's too complicated for me to figure out. It's too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.
As someone who has been seriously thinking about intelligent design for many years, I can report that Tyson's characterization is NOT "fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design." On the contrary, Tyson is simply repeating a superficial perception of ID that is common among its critics. Thus, this is one reason why I simply do not assign much weight to the criticism of many ID critics. They may be very intelligent and very good at what they normally do, but their basic grasp of ID is not very impressive. For example, when it comes to the type of questions that interest me, someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't seem to offer me anything useful or interesting.