Anselm of intelligent design

Let me take a second to welcome myself back. I wanted to take a few minutes to blog on something whose absurdity is apparent to me, but is always overlooked among most people giving the benefit of a lot of doubts to ID. ID is criticized as not being science because it's claims cannot be verified in a lab. While true, it overlooks the internal conflict of logic within the theory. The theory, to use a common example, posits that, if one looks at a clock, that person would be forced to assume that the clock is so complex that it must have had a creator. The example is then taken back a step. Essentially, if one looks at the creator of the clock, one must assume that creator is so complex she must have had a creator. This argument could go on forever, taking one step back and assuming that the creator, is too complex too have come about independently of any guidance. This my friends is teleology, the study of how we came to be, closely related to epistomology, the study of knowledge, whose root is the same root as for the epistles. Very clearly this is a theological argument. Inasmuch as philosphy is taught in high schools, it's place is going to be in those classes rather than in biology. However, no philosophy professor worth his or her salt would ever entertain a "that than which none greater can be thought."