[Shryke]

People who reject ID a priori don’t seem to understand what they are buying into.

You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory. ID may very well be the origin of life. It is, however, fundamentally unscientific. I'll offer a retort:

People that embrace ID as a scientific theory have no idea what science is. Or, perhaps, don't care.

[Coyoteman]

You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory.

On the other hand, creationists accept the concept of ID, and use the political movement supporting ID as justification for their beliefs.

The current iteration of ID, pushed largely by the Dyscovery Institute, is 1) an attempt to "wedge" religion back into schools, and 2) an attempt to pretend creationism is supported by science, when it is not.

[jwalsh07]

You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory. ID may very well be the origin of life. It is, however, fundamentally unscientific.

OK, for giggles let's go with ID is THE mechanism for the OOL.

We'll also go with your statement that ID is fundamentally unscientific.

So, in effect, we have placed limits on the search for knowledge.

Our problem is that given the proposition that ID is THE mechanism for the OOL, we have placed the truth off limits to science.

You see a problem there?