One of the biggest problems with ID is that there is absolutely NO supporting science. I read Michael Behe's book, "Darwins Black Box" a while ago and while it is a good read there are a number of problems with the central thesis. They generally revolve around the lack of any real data for design as well a number of theoretical errors and problems with his Irreducuble Complexity concept, not to mention what I considered poor literature searches for biochemical support for evolution. I am currently putting together a short critique on his blood clotting arguement based on the horseshoe crab and the LAL assay for endotoxin, I hope to have it posted on my sorry excuse for a web page on yahoo by the end of April. Basically it (my critique) trashes his concept that the clotting mechanism could not have evolved. Other problems with his arguements are that 1) he uses arguements against abiogenesis as arguements against evolution, and they really are apple and orange arguements, nothing in any of the theories on how evolution occurred/occurrs rely on abiogenesis, 2) a number of his statistical calculation are based on a numebr of a priori assumptions that are questionable at best, 3) he ignores/ignored some relevant research on cillia and flagella that undercut his arguements in those areas. One of the laeding founders of ID, P. Johnson, called M. Behe's work the leading edge of biological/biochemical ID, I am sorry to have to report that it looks like a rather blunt edge to me.
There is another book that I just purchased, "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics", edited by Robert Pennock the author of "The Tower of Babel". So far (I am only into the first chapter) the book appears to be quite good.