‘The Intelligent Design argument makes no sense.’ Discuss.

A cohort of fundamentalist theists would strongly disagree with this statement, arguing that Intelligent Design (ID) which postulates the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer' (i.e. God) is a logical explanation for the existence of 'telos' (or purpose) and complex design that we see in everyday nature. This is supported by Michael Behe's concept of 'irreducible complexity', arguing that some organisms could have never been more simplified. Penrose also argued the statistical chance of conditions on Earth being just right is 1:10 billion x 123, which would suggest ID very much makes sense. However, evolutionists, such as Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins, would agree that ID makes 'no sense' in the context of science, and thus vehemently disagree with the above arguments. Their theory of evolution, makes an Intelligent Designer redundant by explaining that the complexity we see in the world is created by random mutations in genes occurring over millions of years. Fossils serve as is empirical evidence for such. I agree with the titled statement. Perceived 'telos' in an object is an example of where an organism has evolved to maximise their utility, and we ought not project a sentimental concept of purpose on nature. While evolution isn't yet able to explain all things that appear irreducibly complex, it makes no sense to use ID as a 'God of the gaps' explanation.