For me it is not the ideology, but the intent. I have seen a clear intent to use ID as a scientific veneer on top of creationism. I have no problem with the religious who honestly consider ID as a hypothesis.
IOW, when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused - but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself.
That would be proving a negative. OTOH, the supernatural hasn't been scientifically supported, so it should be ignored by science until some future evidence appears. ID starts with the presupposition that the supernatural exists. It seems to me to be a shaky foundation.
Like I said, I'm willing to let ID survive or die on its own scientific merits. Unfortunately for ID, its greatest proponents always seem to get in the way with hyperbole, subterfuge, dishonesty and even perjury.
...Like I said, I'm willing to let ID survive or die on its own scientific merits.
Neither "natural" nor "supernatural" are raised in the hypothesis.
IOW, "intelligent cause" includes both phenomenon (intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity and fractal intelligence) as well as agency (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.)
If the selection of mates is found to be the best explanation for certain features in life, then the hypothesis is vindicated.
No doubt some who are counting on the "intelligent cause" being an agency would be disappointed, but that is all the hypothesis says. It is what it is.