I've always considered the philosopher of science Del Ratzsch one of my favorite writers about ID. He's well-read on the subject, his arguments are both detailed and clear, and he doesn't care a whit about toeing the line or belonging with the right crowd. Imagine my joy when Dembski posted a link to an article (PDF) of Ratzsch's, reviewing the book God, the Devil, and Darwin by Niall Shanks (also mentioned here). Although Ratzsch makes it clear that he too sees some problems with ID, he makes no attempt to hide the polemical and innacurate nature of Shanks' book, showing that it commits the same fallacies as proponents of ID are usually accused of committing, including: Ignoring the relevant literature about the matter under discussion (in this case, history of science), quoting opponents out of context, comitting elemental errors of logic (confusing the motivations of people with the contents of the view they're proposing), and stacking the deck. In fact, Ratzsch's article isn't so much a review as a detailed refutation of a number of arguments popular among the ID critics one can meet on discussion boards and on blogs.
For example, Ratzsch quotes Shank making this perfectly reasonable point:
"[E]ven if we conclude that the constants were tuned by design, the numbers themselves tell us nothing about who or what did it. To get from the conclusion of mere design to the further conclusion that it was design by the God of religion X will require more than simple observations of cosmological fine-tuning [p. 211]"
Of course, as Ratzsch illustrates, this very point has been emphasized by ID proponents:
"Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated." [William Dembski, quoted on p. 154]
"The existence of design is distinct from the morality, esthetics, goodness, optimality or perfection of design." [Dembski, quoted on p. 156]"
So, on this point at least, Shanks concedes that Dembski et al. got it right, right? Wrong: He dismisses Dembski's point as irrelevant, claiming that the ID proponent are really interested in proving the existence of the Christian God, and that in trying to make the point, they're lying to their readers. Ratzsch comments:
"So if Dembski and ID advocates ignore the distinction Shanks demands (and which Dembski of course made above), and try to infer the supernatural character (and other identifying characteristics) of the designer from the proposed fact of design they are making a serious logical error – an 'unwarranted leap' But if they do make the distinction Shanks demands and claim to be separating design from their religious identification of the designer, they are 'telling lies'. This particular playing field isn't merely slanted – it's vertical."
To the ID proponents: Go read this article. To the ID critics: Go read this article too. Ratzsch adresses a number of beliefs common among the ID-criticial community ("ID is an outgrowth of creationism" anyone?), and he does so clear and convincingly. This article contains the kind of arguments you will need to start adressing.