cara sent me this link and it is amazing: flying spaghetti monsterism
it is not, however, a valid critique of ID because it is not actually an alternative to ID, but a subset of it. as i understand it (admittedly, not very far), Intelligent Design is not the argument that Big Daddy Christ made the earth in 7 days and hallelujah, but that some unspecified intelligence of some unspecified sort created the universe in some unspecified manner. i mean sure there are people who try to bludgeon you with their own beliefs on that front, and i have no idea what the kansas board is actually planning to install in their lesson plans, but ID itself is just another hypothesis, and could very well be correct for all we know. if anything, i would say that ID discourages leaning towards the godly - some aliens, working with the materials and natural laws at hand, might come up with the ludicrously complex systems of life that we have, but why would a supernatural omnipotent omniscient being create such an awful mess?
of course, usually in its defense people will start trying to disprove evolution, but that is because people are either stupid, disingenuous, or both. proving evolution to be false would not prove ID correct. it also would not prove christianity correct. or scientology.
update: okay, on consideration, it is a valid critique in that FSM specifically is just as scientifically valid as ID generally. this gets lost, for me, because he keeps saying that FSM shoudl be taught alongside ID, which makes no sense if FSM is a subset and not an alternative.