Only as a matter of dogma. If one can dismiss something as "non-scientific," then one need not worry about it in discussions such as this.
Thank you for adding your ignorant and incorrect opinion to the discussion.
Here's what you're missing:
1. Creationists try to falsely claim that their position is supported by science, or is scientific, in a dishonest attempt to give it an apparent increased legitimacy, or to try to force it into science classrooms where it doesn't belong.
2. Science deals with ideas that are actually testable. This isn't just an arbitrary criteria. It has two very important consequences: a) concepts that aren't testable can't be determined as true or not, they can merely be emptily asserted. And more to the point: b) concepts that aren't testable are irrelevant to the real world, because if they *did* have a practical effect on the real world, *that* would make them testable.
In short, science, by its nature, deals with things that actually matter to reality. Conversely, things that are non-scientific don't really matter whether they're true or not.
"ID", as it currently stands, is a useless postulate, and whether it's true or not, it still doesn't matter, because it has absolutely no consequences either way. (If it *did* have consequences, *then* it would be testable, *and* thus would be subject to scientific examination.)
I asked you the following question in another thread, but you unnaccountably forgot to answer, so here goes again:
What conceivable observation would show ID to be false?