''i wouldn't call blatant logical fallacies "philosophical clarity."''
Logical fallacies? That's rather 'either/or' of you..
since the quote was mine, i'll answer.
it's not a false dichotomy. id is nothing but one logical fallacy after another (including, btw, false dichotomies). any apparent clarity has nothing to do with it being logically sound -- or even factually correct. it's not even a good argument, for those who are paying attention to what's really being said.
it just SOUNDS nice.
However, it is the increased complexity that is a problem for evolution, not the I.D. argument.
actually, when computer systems are programmed with evolutionary algorithms to generate structures, they
routinely come up with systems that behe would call irreducibly complex.
As for the Bible, the only reason I didn't understand it for so long was because I didn't want it to be true...
i find the exact opposite to be true in my debates here. the people who want it to be true the most often understand it the least. they are usually unwilling to accept that the bible could be wrong about something, and are then forced to change what the bible says or means in order to make it factually correct. they are not so much interested in understand the bible, but in proving the bible to be true.
often, they severly limit themselves in other manners. how can we begin to talk about the cultural context, how the text was read, written, and compiled, and the structure of the various collections within if people just want to run it through the blender and come out with "word of god" paste? they are so interested in making it consistent, that they rob all flavor from the text, all differences, and all the various voices and opinions presented therein.