As ID proponents we often make two claims
1. ID makes no statement about the designer.
2. The bacterial flagellum resembles an outboard motor.
The second claim is an analogy to human intelligence (which can be expressed as a valid inference to the best explanation). However, the second claim is a statement that the designer of nature resembles, in someway, human intelligence – thus it is a statement about the designer.
I have been reading Hume’s Dialogues for my PhD (or for my sins – I don’t quite know which). Hume, through his character Philo offers two possibilities in response to Cleanthes design argument that design in nature is in some way analogous to human intelligence. The first, in part VII, is stated as being based on Plato’s Timaeus and Hesiod, (presumably Hesiod’s Theogeny – the ‘generation of the gods’, the original ‘modification with descent.’) The demiurge of the Timaeus provides a source or power of generation without apparently requiring intelligence, which Erasmus Darwin also favoured. In part VIII Hume also offers an Epicurean perspective where finite particles fall through an infinity of time – a position no longer accepted by modern cosmology where time and space are now considered finite).
What is ironic is that evolutionists will happily consider that some plastic force at work in nature can account for order (many Royal Society members such as Joseph Lister believed a Platonic plastic force in the earth generated fossils while the design proponent and flood geologist Nicolai Steno proved they were of organic origin). But what is hated so much by the Darwinists is the analogy to human intelligence because it is a powerful statement about the designer – mankind created in the image of God. Any thoughts?