"A number of their websites (try a Google search) clearly state that ID is a "camel's nose under the tent" and a "wedge" to get creationism into the curricula."
You statement is untrue. No true "ID" proponents have an agenda of getting "creationism" taught in the schools. Some "creationists" may be attempting to "ride the backs" of ID proponents to do the "camel's nose" trick. However, that does not make the proponents of ID guilty of a hidden agenda. I am a creationist, but I clearly distance myself from ID proponents. I strictly interpret scripture; a literalist unless the language is obvious metaphor etc. ID proponents do not. They have a more open view of scriptural interpretation.
I think that attempting to paint ID proponents as creationists is an unfair characterization. It insults both ID folks and creationists. The "creationist lite" monocker is an MSM/liberal strawman to descredit a middle of the road position (ID) by painting it as right wing.
BTW - The "camel's nose in the tent" argument has been used by the ACLU and their ilk for years to justify opposing harmless things. Are you in the same class as the ACLU in your reasoning?
Well-said!
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html
http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weinshan/Intelligent%20Design%20Movement%20in%20Their%20Own%20Words.htm
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1188
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special