The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own.
Nonsense. The only problem most of us have with ID is when its proponents insist on re-writing the definition of "science" to accomdate it.
The answer is simple - don't pretend that it's science, and you'll have no beef with most of the people on these threads. It's the lowering of standards to which we object.
On what basis do you claim that ID theory isn't science?