Roughgarden States it Plain

I am currently holding in my hands a little book called Evolution and Christian Faith, by Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden. I don't agree with Roughgarden's religious views, but she sure does a good job of nailing ID:

Furthermore, neo-Darwinism can account for complex structures. When you get together eye experts, lung experts, feather experts, blood clotting experts, and so on, it always turns out that they can suggest plausible neo-Darwinian sceanrios for how these structures originated. (p. 89).

And:

So, when the intelligent design folks announce with great fanfare that the bacterial flagellum is too complex to be explained by natural selection...well, it's hard for evolutionary biologists to suppress yawns. (p. 92)

And:

Each of us in evolutionary biology has learned, often to our amazement, that extraodrinary complexity and beauty do emerge from natural breeding acting on random mutations. The guidance that leads to this astonishing complexity is the sustained direction provided by the natural husbandry component of the evolutionary process. One cannot underestimate this. So, when a Johnny-come-lately political movement like intelligent-design turns up from folks without much experience in evolutionary biology and without any scientific data to support their theory, it's hard to take seriously. (pp. 93-94)

And finally:

Nonetheless, what I've learned from the political success of the intelligent design movement is the need to teach what makes bad science bad. I favor teaching intelligent design as an example of bad science. I don't favor simply tossing both Darwin and intelligent design to students and saying, “Hey, you decide.” That would be irresponsible. We have to say why intelligent design is junk science. The decision by Judge John E. Jones III in December 2005 concerning the Dover, Pennsylvania school board might be assigned as a reading, specifically section E4 (pp. 64-89), where he ruled that the intelligent design curriculum presented in this case was not science. (pp. 99-100)

Couldn't have said it any better myself.