Of course it doesn't exhaust the concept, nobody suggested that it does. It is relevant inasmuch as this is their definition of "God," and if anyone is going to engage in discussion with IDers, it's important to clarify the meanings of the terms used. The same kind of objections can be launched against ordinary science. Both IDers as well as scientists look at the world, and then make claims about its essence. Sure, they make different claims, but both have in common that they make claims about the world's essence simply on the grounds of looking at the world (and refuse to acknowledge their own projections). Just like IDers operate out of axioms (one of them being that God is the First Cause), so ordinary science operates out of axioms. Referring back to one's axioms is not the fallacy of special pleading. It is simply not possible to have any kind of discourse without first positing some axioms. Same principle is at work in with science. Scientists are very much invested into a materialistic understanding of life, and their theories are geared toward "proving" that matter is all there is. You wish to talk about "God" and make claims and extrapolations about "God" - without first defining the term "God"? Again, the same with science: Why shouldn't we question science's axioms? Why must we keep our inquiries in line with science - but only up to a certain point, from which on there be dracones and we must shut off all inquiry? The way I see it, the weakness of ID criticism is that the critics accuse the IDers of exactly the same things they themselves are guilty of. Which is how the whole thing remains so upsetting, never getting resolved. It is my estimation so far that the ID movement in the US, along with the citicism of it, is taking place in ways that would not be possible in, say, Europe. The general atmosphere in the US seems to be one of supposed free speech, First Amendment, personal freedom and "pursuit of happiness" (you have that in the Constitution), a spirit of entrepreneurship and competition, but also accompanied by a tendency toward litigiousness. Given this context, I don't make too much of the actual arguments used in the ID debate by either side. I see no hope of settling the matter philosophically (or scientifically) as long as the social context is what it is. It seems that per US standards, for either side to prevail, the civil rights of the other side would have to be trampled.