Intelligent Design is not science, but a guiding philosophical framework for scientific discovery. The opposition to ID is not therefore science itself, but the philosophical framework of Materialism. To believe one over the other means you look at certain scientific discoveries as "exceptions" and others as the "rule". As far as evolution is concerned, the only reason why it is at the center instead of Materialism, is because of the religious and philosophical nature of extensions to evolution.
Each philosophical worldview must explain origins and ultimate destinations of humanity. Materialism clings on to evolution for the origin of humanity, and its close cousin abiogenesis (primordial soup) for the origin of life. Multiverse theory even attempts to go on and similarly explain the origin of the universe itself. It also at the same time dictates ultimate destinations being not an afterlife, but a nihilistic nothingness. Since this directly contradicts the majority of western beliefs (monotheistic creator, heaven and hell destination), there is a battle. However the battle is mistakenly between a philosophy, and a theory more narrow than what most people believe in the first place.
If evolution was only taught as pre-existing species changing over generations due to environmental factors, I don't think there would be much of a debate. However, it is taught as human origins, life origins (primordial soup) and intrinsicly the ultimate destination of nothing after you die. That is not evolution, it is a Materialist philosophy tagged as science. And if people were really interested in separating religion from government, then they would not approve of any discussion of such things, other than maybe in a debate class.
Although, someone will most definitely be upset that their belief is referred to as a "creation myth", I felt it was a very diplomatic way of handling the issue and gave each idea the same level of respect by acknowledging that without further proof...it's anyone's guess. I thought it was excellent.
This is an accurate, understandable and concise description of the issue. Thank you.
I have been trying to make this point in another manner by suggesting how little evolutionary theory has to do with the real work of science. But the chicken littles keep shouting that ID will cause the sky to fall.