Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back. The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science, and of course, it is not. This has little to do with whether or not it's true, and I expect opinions around here are pretty evenly scattered through quite a wide spectrum on the subject.
"The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science..."
Reputable scientists take facts as known and then posit ID theories based on them. Why is this intellectually invalid? Not testable or falsifiable, like Darwinism?