Name 10, and show me one whose compelling argument compelled a confirming cite in a widely recognized biological journal.
None of them strike me as particularly religious, merely intrigued. Cosmologists, mathmeticians and molecular biologists have weighed in.
Meaning, Dempski, Behe, and Hoyle or Watson, I presume.
One thing I notice about the comments that anyone who even remotely suggests that its worth studying the ID arguments is automatically assumed to not only be a religious zealot in the tradition of a Torquemada, but a consumer of "comic book brainfood" as well. It is possible to be intrigued, find the discusions meritorious and not be a Christians fundamentalist (or any other sort of religious fundamentalist). Recognizing that such people do exist seems to be the greatest intellectual hurdle of all.
Nobody is gainsaying you your right to speculate, or to decide for yourself what sparks your fancy, but that still doesn't make ID a science, or even a speculation that most scientists deem worthy of more than a college bullsessions' worth of attention. Now you can call this an "intellectual hurdle" if you want, but I find that a pretty pretentious, and somewhat rude conceit, myself.
Tell me this isn't funny. Actually, if you haven't read it, this book is chock-a-block with entertaining evidence, some of which isn't laughably dismissable, but most of which is.
"Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution" by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe