It's an irrational fear of the truth and a classic example of the Fallacy of The False Dilemma -- if "A" is wrong, then "B" must be right.
ID claims that something which isn't fully understood, is proof of the existence of a Greater Power.
"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself." -- Jefferson
ID claims nothing of the kind. Neither does evolution claim proof of any non-existence of a "Greater Power." The proper role for any observer is, "'A' may be right. 'B' may be right. I will consider the evidence as it comes my way." Neither the principle of intelligent design nor the principle that all we observe is the product of unintelligent non-design, nor any combination of the two is wholly beyond reasonable discourse. At the same time, none of these three principles constitutes empirical science.
Interesting that you would make this point. I have made it on many occasions; but you miss a few valid points.
If A is wrong, A is wrong.
If 'A' is wrong; 'B', 'C', 'D', or ... must be right
Assume evolution = A, and ID/creation = B
If A is wrong, then B, C, D, or ... must be right.
B would be right if there are no other views that could be denoted as C, D, ...
I'd be interested in what you would consider to be reasonable alternatives to A or B. Do you know of any?
It is not a "Fallacy of The False Dilemma" to say B is right if A is wrong and there are only two possible answers.
That you think you are all that intelligent really irritates those of us who actually are.