Intelligent Design 3: Idolatry Once More

Someone suggested that my interpretation of ID (Intelligent Design) as Idolatry was only true for the particular case wherein it was argued that the Designer need not necessarily be God. So I said, do ya think, duh? (And then the snake of ID did a few twists and shot away in the twinkling of an eye and went home to ID Central to be re-defined. The theory reminds me of the villain in Harry Potter films, a villain of many faces.)

The point was good and I am sorry (I'm pronouncing "sorry" as if I were Canadian, which is equivalent to having my fingers crossed behind my back). My wife says no wonder my so-called friends often resemble vengeful villagers from the early Frankenstein movies, carrying torches and pitch forks and what not when they visit.
My Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. If there were any "design phase" in the process, it seems to be totally implicate within the "Let there be..." I mean, God said let there be light. My Bible doesn't say let there be such-and-such light following my exact specifications which I have set forth in documents Alpha through Omega, and so on and so on. I ask you whether you actually mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE that God create without design? I ask whether you hold it absolutely NECESSARY that God do things the way you say he must? I ask you whether you are asserting that God the Creator is SUBSERVIENT to the laws of Nature and to your reading of those laws?
I find the whole discussion somewhat difficult, since my Faith centers on the Gospels. I feel absolutely no need to use Science to render my God more properly God-like. I mean, I don't really feel the earth tremble beneath my faith because I can't see God's fingerprint on everything in nature. In fact, if I could see God's fingerprint on everything, then the earth would tremble, for then my Faith in God would be subject to possible falsification, as are all scientific theories.

Now, from a philosophical approach: 1) I reject any argument about teleogy based on Aristotle or Aquinas dealing with this particular situation. Amicus Aristotelis sed magis amicus veritatis. 2) The argument from Irreducible Complexity does not compel. I appeal to Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I refer to the phenomena he deals with as a Wolfram Process. I believe it to be the case that a Wolfram Process has the ability to demonstrate several, well-matched, interacting parts without the ID concept of design. 3) Mr. Dembski's argument of Specified Complexity does not compel. Again, I believe that a Wolfram Process underlies much of the phenomena being discussed; i.e., evolution, and such a process has outcomes which cannot be assigned a probability at present. 4) The arguments deal with concepts which cannot compel assent based on logic alone. The presentation of ID strongly resembles Science and Religion for Dummies. In the present day, I would rather see a discussion whether any of the phenomena are Wolfram Processes and whether they possess Computational Universality (hence, whether we may predict future states).
Lastly, it has been a matter of policy for ID proponents to disguise their agenda. I have no problem with creationism. I do have a problem with disguised creationism. If someone feels compelled to disguise their motives, then their real motives are suspect. Who is beating the drum to which they march? intelligent design 2 intelligent design 1