js1138, do you know whether ID actually refutes macroevolution? If not, it would seem odd given the perception that ID is an "alternative" theory. And its particularly ironic that some Creationists are cozying up to ID, given that one of their central criticisms of the TOE is macroevolution.
Three of the leading lights in the ID movement -- Behe, Dembski and Denton -- have accepted the historic fact of evolution, along with the age of the earth as understood by mainstream geology.
Denton wrote a book some years ago asserting that evolution was impossible. He's written a new book asserting that the design of nature's physical constants guarantees evolution.
The fourth leg of the ID chair -- the Discovery Institute -- has opted out of this trial, saying ID is not ready for the classroom. An opinion shared by mainstream science.
I have no opinion on ID's ultimate standing, but it isn't science yet. Science is about what you can study and acquire evidence for. No one has figured out how to support ID with evidence.