First off: I don't believe I've ever read any "ID website". I have read the "scientific literature", including primary source material, on many subjects.
Second: I oppose people who make statements such as "If you believe Darwin, you're no Christian"
Third: I know MANY SCIENTISTS who support ID in one form or another, believing that Darwinian theory is simply not adequate to explain the way life apparently arose on Earth.
Fourth: stating that "micro-evolution is merely a subset of macro-evolution" says nothing about the veracity of Intelligent Design theory and subsets of ID.
That is fallacious reasoning. Even if the theory of evolution is found ultimately to be incomplete or even wrong, it does not follow that ID is either right or even scientific.
I agree. From a philosophical point, religion and science do not necessarily conflict.
Third: I know MANY SCIENTISTS who support ID in one form or another, believing that Darwinian theory is simply not adequate to explain the way life apparently arose on Earth.
If that is the case, these scientists need to go back to school. Evolution has nothing to do with how life arose on this planet. Where I work, there is one scientist who is very hard working, very CHristian and outright rejects evloution and supports a 6 day young Earth creation. He is also terrible at planning controls for his experiments and jumps to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions. Are the two related?
Fourth: stating that "micro-evolution is merely a subset of macro-evolution" says nothing about the veracity of Intelligent Design theory and subsets of ID.
You accumulate enough 'micro' changes and you have 'macro' changes. Also, there is no scientific theory for ID because there are no observed facts for it and it is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. ID has no informational content so it cannot have subsets.