Here's a link you left off. I'll supply it for anyone with an actual open mind to consider for themselves:
FAQ’s about ID:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqdntsl.html
Snippet:
“Q. What are the objections to ID? A. Common objection to ID include:
· ID is just creationism: Critics object that ID is just another name for creationism. This is done either to marginalise ID as young-Earth creationism, in order to capitalise on that position's attendant scientific difficulties, or as "religion" in order to capitalise on judicial decisions based on the US Constitution's separation of church and State provisions. However, as previously stated, ID is not based on the Bible, or the tenets of any religion, but on the evidence of nature.
· ID is not science: This objection is often made in conjunction with the above claim that ID is creationism or religion, and therefore is not science. Other objections are that ID papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or that ID fails to meet the criteria of true science, like testability, falsifiability, observability, repeatability, predictability, naturalistic, etc. The first objection fails because, ID papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals, even scientific journals, and other ID papers which have been submitted to scientific journals have been rejected either with no explanation or on philosophical grounds. Also, ID has been critiqued in scientific journals, and ID has held scientific conferences which mainstream naturalistic scientists have attended. The claim that ID does not meet the criteria of true science, fails on at least three counts. First, the issue of criteria to demarcate science from non-science is itself controversial with philosophers of science. Second, ID does meet the above criteria of true science anyway, where that is appropriate to its subject-matter. Third, if ID is declared to be non-science, then other sciences which depend on detecting design, like archaeology, forensic science, information theory and SETI, would also have to be declared unscientific.
· ID cannot identify the designer: This objection is often made in conjunction with some of the above claim that ID is not science. This objection fails because ID does not claim to be trying to detect a designer, but design. It is not a requirement in the other sciences above which depend on the detection of design that they must identify the designers before they can conclude design. To be sure, design necessarily implies a designer, but only of sufficient intelligence and power to account for the design in question.”
Here’s another link you omitted that people might like to check out for themselves:
http://www.arn.org/dembski/wdhome.htm