I am not sure what the relevance is of your statement especially as far as my comment goes that ID has little chance of succeeding (assuming that you are correct). What might be "self evident" to you could merely be a reflection of your personal bias.
From: Pim van Meurs <email@example.com>
To: Howard J. Van Till <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'Moorad Alexanian'
<email@example.com>; ASA Listserve <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Evolution Listserve
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>Moorad: I think we can know something for what it is or for what it is not.
>term "intelligent design" means that the universe did not come into being
>without the aid of some preexisting being who has the ability to reason.
>Therefore, in truth there is no such thing as truly random, everything is
>designed. We are like fish in the water who are not aware of the existence
>of the water and want to prove it. An impossible task!
>I guess that's the end of ID then ?