I am a scientist, and deal with other scientists daily. While some of Darwin's postulates are correct (like releasing white mice in a brown field will result in no brown mice: they will be naturally selected against: they will stand out and be eaten!), the idea of the human being just evolving from nothing is vapid. The evolving evidence from DNA (Genomics), proteins (Proteomics), and resulting metoblites that run and fuel the body (Metabolomics), is so complex that most of my associates believe in "Intelligent Design". A company that is a customer of mine has identified 25,000 diferent metabolites as of this date. This is a result of randomm action?I don't think so.
I'm curious, what is your academic discipline? Biology? I am also a scientist but I am a mathematician; most of my colleagues where I teach seem to operate under the assumption that ID is foolish, especially the biologists. (There's been a running conversation on our faculty listserv for weeks now on ID.)
My own personal take on ID is that I believe in a God who designed life to be able to evolve by itself. That is, I'm a theistic evolutionist. I think the most plausible case for ID can be made in the biochemical origins of life. But I don't think ID belongs in school; let serious scientists hash this issue out unless (or until) the biological community changes its overwhelming consensus on evolution.