I agree that many ID proponents try to use the science way of knowing to prove that creator gods must have built some complex molecular structures inside modern cells. They try to use evidence and they try to use rational thinking to arrive at logical conclusions. That qualifies as science, in my opinion, even though ID proponents fail to make their case. They don't have the evidence and their logic is faulty. It's science but it's bad science.
Lots of genuine scientists also publish bad science.
I don't agree with much of what Jonathan McLatchie says in this video even though we might arrive at similar conclusions. I don't think he understands why you need to use the broad definition of science in order to make ID legitimate.
Some of what he says misrepresents the activities of most ID proponents who concentrate 99% of their activities on discrediting evolution. Only a tiny percentage of ID proponents try to make the positive case for ID and that tiny effort has been an abject failure.
There's another problem with this video. Some of my friends make the blanket statement that ID is NOT SCIENCE. That is, it lies completely outside any boundary you would draw to encompass all of "science." I don't agree with that view but I also don't think that ID lies completely within the boundary that encompasses the scientific way of knowing. That's because ID is not just an activity directed at finding the truth about the universe, it's also a political and social movement that embraces religious zealots and Young Earth Creationists and others who are very much anti-science.
As long as ID supports outspoken leaders like Denyse O'Leary, Barry Arrington, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, David Klinghoffer, Paul Nelson, John West, William Lane Craig, and others who are not scientific by any stretch of the imagination, then it can't claim to be entirely scientific.1 It's also a movement and that movement is called Intelligent Design Creationism and their ultimate goal is to replace true science with an approach based on the premise that gods exist. It wants faith to be recognized as a valid way of knowing and it wants to destroy materialism and all the "evils" associated with it.
This is why a spokesman for ID appears on a Christian apolgetics podcast even though the Pastor who runs the show is not a scientist and probably doesn't accept scientific results. He knows, just as you and I know, that ID is a front for creationism. It's an attempt to dress up creationism in a lab coat and that's why so many Christian fundamentalists support it even thought they don't give a damn about science.
If McLatchie were being honest, he wouldn't support this attempt to hoodwink Christian apologists into thinking that ID has found scientific proof that gods exist. Unless, of course, Jonathan McLatchie actually believes that's true.
1. Discovery Institute Fellows UPDATE: I did not mean to imply that everyone on the list was a Discovery Institute Fellow. I know full well that Denyse O'Leary and Barry Arrington are not Fellows. I know that the Discovery Institute has low standards but not that low. The link was meant to show that William Lane Craig is a Fellow.