I confess to a certain degree of ignorance in what the science of intelligent design purports to be. I am a Christian, but I don't consider it to be a matter of science-- it is a matter of faith.
That said, the development of ID as a science should not be squelched. It appears to be in its infancy qua science, and is deserving of a chance to germinate, and perhaps develop falsiable theories. My recollection of the treatment of most new fields of science is that they are met with ridicule and attack (often even physical attack and torture) as they develop, this attack coming by the "established" sciences. Geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism, but only reluctantly. I am sure others can give other and better examples.
I don't suggest that science should be abandoned in favor of the study of ID, but I am not sure even ID people suggest that. It seems to me that much scientific achievement is made upon "hunches" or stabs in the dark, thereafter proven (and more often disproven).
Does God exist? I believe so. Can it be proven? I don't know, but should the effort be squelched?
Finally, the nature of the argument on this topic, as I lurk on these threads from time to time, usually quickly devolves into shrieks and insults, which I usually take as a sign of weakness in any argument. I am sure many are frustrated, but if one cannot formulate a logical and measured response even to that which one believes is lunacy, might I suggest you take a drink and come back calmer....
I don't know what I said that gave you the idea I was for squelching anything. The issue is time and place. We're not talking about research at the university level. We are talking about high school--generally introductory biology class.
Biologists will not recognize ID as a scientific theory until its proponents show that they are serious about developing falsifiable hypotheses, testing them, and publishing the results. I actually would not object to discussing why ID is not a scientific theory in biology class, but to present it as science there is not honest.
You could call ID a philosophy--I have no objections. Teach it in philosophy or religion class--fine. Just don't call it a scientific theory because at the moment it is not. If the ID people start doing the necessary hypothesis development and testing, I will change my position. How's that?