In this UD post Ken Miller is quoted as saying:
“The argument for intelligent design basically depends on saying, ‘You haven’t answered every question with evolution,’… Well, guess what? Science can’t answer every question.”
No, ID says, You haven’t answered the most fundamental question about evolution: the origin of biological information. In fact, the mechanism you propose as an answer to that question is — logically (the challenge of producing functionally integrated machinery in a step-by-tiny-step process with each step being both functional and progressively advantageous), mathematically (the huge improbabilities created by combinatorial explosion), and empirically (Behe’s demonstration in the field of the severe limits of random mutation and natural selection) — inadequate to the task.
In addition, ID theory does not depend on the inadequacy of the Darwinian mechanism, it also relies upon a rational and reasonable inference to design based upon what Stephen Meyer refers to as the known cause-and-effect structure of the world, that is, that intelligence is the only known source of complex specified information.
This is one of the most maddening things about Ken Miller. He consistently misrepresents the claims of ID theorists.