The problem is that the IDer's aren't sceintifically literate enough to even compose a theory.
True science puts all the facts out on the table, works on poking holes in every theoretical explanation, invites alternate explanations, publicizes all results not only supporting, but it absolutely REVELS in anomalous results and enjoys debating alternate explanations.
You are quite right about that. Evolutionary science has lots of ares for research and interesting things to investigate. The problem is that ID claims that the lack of perfect knowledge invalidates a scientific theory. ID is being rejected as an alternative because it offers no new insights and does not explain what we observe better than evolution. My biggest pet peeve with ID isn't that it's not science (that's the strongest arguement against it) but that there is so much scientific illieracy, lies and misconceptions on the part of its proponents. These issues merely cloud the water and confuse the lay population. People like me that have sincere concern about the quality of science taught in the U.S. find these misconceptions and lies outrageous and requires a lot of work just to overcome before even engaging in an origins debate.