He said "creationism", not ID. Remember, ID is different from creationism. We know this because ID proponents say so.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure why creationists are so gung-ho about ID. To the best I can understand all the ID arguments, if you accept ID you accept the following:
1. That the universe began in the manner outlined by current inflationary theory cosmology (ie. big bang theory).
2. The universe is ~15 billion years old.
3. The earth is ~5 billion years old.
4. Life on earth probably formed via the reaction and agglomeration of certain naturally-occurring chemicals, although this may have occurred as a result of intelligent guidance.
5. The various species on earth formed from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection of different variants of organisms. These variants occurred because of mutations. This process was guided by an intelligent being.
Note that if you remove any reference to the guidance by an intelligent being from these statements, you basically arrive at statements that are accepted by modern science, including #5 which is the theory of evolution. Modern science doesn't address the question of design at all, so even with these references in place, ID is perfectly consistent with evolution. The only quibble that any intellectually honest scientist would have with any of these statements is that the idea of a designer is nonscientific, so shouldn't be included in a scientific theory. Even given the absolute truth of design, however, modern scientific theories, including evolution, remain valid.