An excellent post, Ahban. My one qualm is your characterizing ID as a "subset of creationism." The variations in theory found in the school of "scientific creationism" all have one thing in common -- they maintain that God created the universe and purport to show that there is a scientific basis for this conclusion. ID does not do this. In essence, it states that any outcome is either the result of chance or of intention, and that there are valid scientific ways of determining which one applies to an observed outcome.
The article at the heading of this thread is a perfect example of unscientific method. It repeatedly takes as a premise (macroevolution) the very thing it hopes to establish as a conclusion (macroevolution). This is circular reasoning.
If a preponderance of the evidence suggests that life was brought into being by conscious agency and not by chance, what can one say of a "scientist" who refutes what the best evidence points to?
Thanks for the support! And let me ease your one qualm, I think I said that Creationism is a subset of ID, not the other way around. That is my position, that Creationism is a major subset of ID, not that ID is a part of Creationism.