If a politician is scientifically literate, he won't be pushing ID; if he isn't scientifically literate, he should defer to the experts, who in this case are biologists.
So, if a politician were pushing ID, I would conclude that he either is 1) scientifically literate and campaigning on a platform he knows is false, or 2) scientifically illiterate but so full of himself that he thinks his opinions are more valuable than centuries of scientific research.
In neither case would I vote for such a person for any office, from dogcatcher to school board member to President.
A good politician will see the merits of both sides and encourage a lively debate in a public setting, as is befitting for a free republic.