But I really do want to hear how you explain this comment that ID could be behind the Darwinian mechanism. I believe you have said or implied this more than once now. If you are being sarcastic then just say so. Otherwise, I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.
One of the most obvious indicators that ID is not very true, is that evolution has not happened very fast, and is not very intelligent. An intelligent designer could bootstrap life into the bacteria phase, extremely rapidly. When you look at the time spans involved, something is terribly wrong with ID.
635–541 million years ago
Wikipedia: Evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years
That means it took an intelligent designer 3 billion years to get from random amino acids, to VERY simple animal life. Ediacaran "animal" life is very plant-like; very simple.
I think that animal life really took off, when the first eyes developed. Then there was a good predator, and the simple animals had to lift their game.
An intelligent designer works in reverse: getting the simple stuff done very fast. God doesn't have to worry about any of that bootstrapping and testing period. A designer just gets straight into designing, and assembles bacteria in a few weeks, and then heads on, to design Ediacaran life a few decades later.
That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.
It may have no validity at all, if the universe is infinite, and does all permutations. If you don't admit that the universe is bigger than you think it is, then it's you who are in the box.
Why don't you tell me just a little about your beliefs and how you came to form them so I can start listing all of the logical fallacies you use to form those beliefs.
I would be surprised if there were any logical fallacies in the conventional scientific view, that you could identify, without collecting a Nobel prize. There may be (a) unexplained gaps, or (b) things which are plain wrong.
In the case of (a) there is no fallacy, just a gap. In the case of (b) you wouldn't be able to identify it.