Exactly. I don't think ID (in the non-human sense) is something that can be proved or disproved at present. I don't even consider it anti-Darwinian, thinking of it as something that would happen parallel with Darwinian evolution.
The problem is that the possibility of ID adds the possibility of divine interaction with science. Science is supposed to steer clear of religious matters. Problem is, if there is, shall we say, supernatural interaction with the world, then science cannot be pure of such matters.
I'm not approaching this as a scientist (to which I hear a loud, "You're telling me!"). I'm approaching this as someone who is trying to get to the big picture that includes science. You can have an ideal that "This is science. This is religion. And never the twain shall meet."
But neither science nor religion seems to be the big picture to me. And I do not feel obliged, in my personal philosophical quest, to keep the two entirely separated. Indeed, every instinct tells me that I can't.
And if ID is true, science may not be able to, as well.
"This is science. This is religion. And never the twain shall meet."
I know this is out of context, but the above is true, IMHO. Religion and Science have 2 completely different, non-overlapping epistemologies. These threads prove it. Science says "prove it", religion says "I believe", which is irrational, by definition. "I believe" says you accept something without proof. Science demands proof, so as Kipling said (and you above) about East and West, "Ne'er the twain shall meet". Neither side can convince the other, because an scientist would have to prove disbelief which cannot be done, by definition. A scientist wants real, reproducible, rational proof, which cannot be produced by belief.
Two non-intersecting Euler Circles.