I repeat for you, and others:
You might be surprised to hear that many of the scientists I have worked with support ID, believing that evolution leaves out important factors. I'm talking about only the top shelf types you would be proud to have working in your university or company.
It is not that they deny evolution occurs, any more than they would deny that E= 1/2 m v^2 is a good approximation to the more accurate representation of Einstein. To many, ID seems as if it might be a more accurate refinement of the way life developed on earth, and they believe that there are very important difficulties posed by a strict "survival of the fittest" explanation.
I understand your point. However, none of those scientists would want ID taught as an alternative to evolution because it is not scientific in nature. Science does not deny the existence of God anymore than it can prove the existence of God. On a more scientific note, ID fails to explain how the information, or 'design' came into existence. It simply capitulates.