Three of the leading lights in the ID movement -- Behe, Dembski and Denton -- have accepted the historic fact of evolution, along with the age of the earth as understood by mainstream geology.
Denton wrote a book some years ago asserting that evolution was impossible. He's written a new book asserting that the design of nature's physical constants guarantees evolution.
The fourth leg of the ID chair -- the Discovery Institute -- has opted out of this trial, saying ID is not ready for the classroom. An opinion shared by mainstream science.
I have no opinion on ID's ultimate standing, but it isn't science yet. Science is about what you can study and acquire evidence for. No one has figured out how to support ID with evidence.
The reason why the Discovery Institute doesn't like this case is because it forces them to present ID as a positive scientific theory. This works against their rhetorical strategy of negative argumentation. They want to criticize Darwinian explanations as incomplete. But they don't want to be forced to offer their own alternative explanation.
Exactly when, where, and how did the Intelligent Designer create the "irreducibly complex" mechanisms of life? The Discovery Institute has no scientifically testable answer to that question.
Thanks for responding.