It is truly sad that defenders of both evolution and intelligent design don't really look at their topics objectivelly, they just defend either one as their "religion" yelling at each other and not listening to another point of view. The fact is, evolution is a theory, not a law, which means that it is (was) the best theory given the observed data, much like the Big Bang theory, which is being revised (some scientists think that the universe came from "sheets" instead of a singularity). ID, from what I understand, takes the THEORY of evolution and, in simple terms, states that we don't really know how it all started due to the mathmatical improbibility of it all. But I guess people don't want to look at it in that light, they just want to argue, which is their right, but it seems to be a moot point.
No matter what, we are here, there are mysteries of the Universe that we don't understand, from the fact that evolution of the first complex protiens should have taken (mathmatically) over 20 billion years to happen given all of the variables, to the fact that the Universe isn't crawling with intelligent life and we haven't detected it yet (read Carl Sagan for more insight on this), to the "missing link" in the past of the human race.
If you read most physicst, specifically the quantum fields and cosmology, they are constantly dumbfounded about the origin of anything in the Universe, and most of them do write a lot of it off to a higher being (God). Yelling at each other, trying to prove or dis-prove the existence of God due to observations (which can be flawed) in one or two specific fields of science is absurd. Most people hear the word "theory" and believe it to be a natrual law, but theories are imperfect and subject to change due to new observations. The final say on evolution, as well as the creation of the Universe, is still open for new theories, and most likely will be for the rest of history because of a lack of data (first hand) that proves conclusively the facts one way or another (unless human beings do evolve to something completely different before the end of history).
People who try to argue for science while disregarding the unknown are deluding themselves, because there will always be mysteries that human beings can't explain, no matter how much we learn about the universe around us.
No, that's not what ID is at all. If ID were about abiogenesis, it wouldn't be at all in conflict with the Theory of Evolution since the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. What ID does say is that God (or Xenu or some unspecified Creator) occasionally steps in and mucks about with the evolutionary process, creating "features" that ID proponents insist could not possibly be created through evolution. Now, in every specific case they cite, such as the flagellum, science has managed to provide a hypothetical evolutionary pathway, but when confronted with that the ID proponents simply smile and either repeat the same example over and over hoping no one will notice, or pick some new supposedly "irreducibly complex" mechanism to harp on, which is in turn dispensed with by the scientific community. Note that ID never actually attempts to tell us what the Creator is, how it works or what mechanisms it uses, it simply posits some unspecified miracle for everything that is not completely understood.