Yes, as horse shit is distinguishable from bull shit. ID is a deductive argument from analogy and teleology. As such, it is neither valid nor scientific. Both Creation Science and ID are based in the politics of religion, a genre which degrades both politics and religion, but ID is an attempt at subterfuge whereas Creation Science is at least an honest effort to advance an agenda.
Both are like unwanted attention from a belligerent drunk, but where Creation Science is like a shove, ID is like the question, ” What are you looking at?”. As with the shove or the question, one response is in order.
Dedicated to the Game
Climbing and other disturbing things.
Dedicated to the Game 
Amen. Came here via Adam Laats blog, where you gave a nice bit of advice to willbell123. He is wasting his time and energy engaging with Chazing.
paz ds
Yeah, I’ve seen that theatre of the absurd before. If you can read past the smoke screen, you’ll see that people with C-dogg’s viewpoint basically maintain that our sensory experience cannot be self-consistent. They can say that, but then they need to shut up about science as they have already declared it an invalid undertaking in principle. As for the specific objections to evolution, they boil down to two points 1) evolutionary theory is an incomplete explanation. Duh, science. 2) evolutionary theory is a rationalizing explanation – the old ‘experimental vs. historical’ science crap. All science is ‘historical’ by this account. Protons were ‘discovered’ much as Tiktaalik was, a different shovel was used is all. The trick is in the history, which these twits ignore. It went: observation of biological variation, hypothesis, predicted fossil data, predicted genetic data, theory – not data, desired outcome, then theory. Talk about Bulverism! Anyway, thanks for stopping by.