One of the most interesting questions came from the filmmaker, Randy Olson. He wanted to know how Behe could justify what seemed clearly to be a “god-of-the-gaps” position, in which a supernatural designer makes for an easy answer to hard scientific questions.
Behe’s answer here was interesting. He said ID is more like archeology or forensics, in which scientists find positive evidence for human influence in artifacts or scenes.
Olson addressed this claim nicely in the film, explaining that scientists have a large number of documented human-created artifacts, so we know what to look for. There’s a way to do this scientifically. But we don’t have any definitive god-created objects or artifacts so there’s no basis for comparison. We don’t really know what a god-created artifact is supposed to look like.
The only trait ID proponents seem to attribute to the designer is that he/she/it is intelligent. We know intelligence because we see it in ourselves – or some of ourselves anyway.
Then someone asked about the blind spot in the eye. Why would an intelligent designer make it with a flaw? Behe’s answer: We can’t presume to know how God would want to design something.
But wait! Does that mean their God might not appear intelligent to us? That would seem to undermine any claim that they can detect designed structures in nature. Now there's no criteria for assessing design - it doesn't even have to look intelligent.