Fellow ex-creationist here. Almagest is exactly correct in his observations. The end-game of YEC is apologetics, seeking to affirm the truth of Scriptures via science. Nothing wrong with that, but it means that most YECs, if given the choice between keeping a literal belief in Genesis or believing (hypothetically) irrefutable evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years, will choose the latter. Bless their faith. I wish I had such strong convictions and security about my soul, but I'm not cut out for that...
There are two types of IDers that I have witnessed.
First, is the layman who may accept common descent, but has a vague feeling that "we can't possibly have evolved from rocks".
Second, is the YEC trying to present a more palatable version of young-earth creationism.
Note that both types exclude a serious study of ID on its own merits. ID as a honest science would go beyond irreducible complexity, and attempt to explain some of the nature of the designer: how the designer combined DNA from different species to make new life, and where, and when. Where's the giant labratory? Where did the designer go and why? What evidence is there for the manipulation and tampering of DNA?
All roads point to YEC.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Errr.. they will choose the FORMER, not latter. Sorry.
There seems to be a school of ID that is little more than the anthropic principle.