I'll bite on this one. ID theory isn't science. Why? While Dembski et al have embroiled themselves in various debates on various college campuses, I've been surprised at the lack of detail in the ID theory. While information theory has undergone peer review, and is becoming an accepted method of mathematically looking at a problem, the method of its application to mutation as an information generation has not been firmly established. When that happens, then perhaps ID will have reached some sort of scientific status.
Until then, Dembski et al seem to be more interested in getting approval in political circles instead of scientific circles. That disturbs me, as he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in convincing peers, but politicians.
Your turn.