Which claims in the ID versus Darwinism/materialism debate are extraordinary?
ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life (thoroughly documented by astrophysicists in increasingly excruciating detail), the origin of living systems from non-living matter, and the evolution of a single cell into humans capable of inventing science, technology, art and philosophy, are best explained by design. Design is a straightforward conclusion that screams at most people from all quarters, which is why only a small percentage of the American populace accepts blind-watchmaker evolutionary theory.
ID is an ordinary claim, and evidence for it is mounting rapidly, on scales from the astronomically huge to the submicroscopically small.
Materialistic philosophy asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life is an accident. (Perhaps our life-tuned universe is the result of an infinitude of in-principle undetectable random universes produced by an in-principle undetectable random-universe-generating machine?) Materialistic philosophy asserts that inanimate matter spontaneously generated life. (No one has the faintest idea how this happened, or even how it could have happened. Origin-of-life hypotheses are hopelessly lost in a web of mutually contradictory speculations that are impotent in the face of the origin of biological information.) And blind-watchmaker Darwinism asserts that random errors (with failed experiments thrown out by natural selection) turned an unexplained cell into human civilization and all that it entails.
Darwinism/materialism is an extraordinary claim — a fantastic claim — and evidence for it is increasingly being shown to be not much more than wishful speculation.