>>24
ID is '100% bunk' because it's a cop-out, it basically says 'the current state of the universe is too complex, therefore it must have been designed by something'. Whichever way you look at it,
that's just not science. And creationism doesn't specifically require omnipotence at all; if you don't see that ID is basically an argument for creationism (although a horribly flawed one), then you're just deluding yourself.