I.e., evidence against ID is chimerical, rendering it inherently unfalsifiable. It therefore fails to provide any meaningful avenue for scientific inquiry.
Nor is it attempting to, at least by the definitions put forth by anti-ID scientists. I think ID simply wants a place at the intellectual table, not to expel any of the current occupants. The anti-ID voice, on the other hand, doesn't even want to let them into the room.
This attitude is curious since, by definition, science is concerned with exploring the unknown. If that is their aim, how can a scientist be so doggedly certain that the tools he has used for that exploration in the past are well suited to explore what is currently unknown, to the exclusion of tools with which he is unfamiliar?