I’m unaware of Pasteur crediting ID with his progress in science. Maybe you could show us “the memo”.
Like you say, science should be open to testing any testable hypothesis, irrespective of its source, but ID proponents offer none that support ID. They claim “irreducible complexity” in various places supports divine intervention, but that’s just another radical leap of faith. At best it only shows that we don’t know something yet. That’s not science; it’s just “blame divine intervention first”. That has its place, but not in science class.
People fighting the introduction of ID into science classes can’t legitimately be compared to those promoting Global Warming. It would be more accurate to compare proponents of ID in science class to man made GW evangelicals, both pushing the teaching of their beliefs beyond the evidence and into places where they don’t belong. Criticism of evolution does not require the promotion of divine intervention.
Resistance to scientific explanation’s not new. But it’s ironic that it’s now coming those who want to promote their purely faith based surrender of science as a science in science classes. That’s why it’s so fervently attacked, not because it threatens evolution as many of its supporters delude themselves into believing, but because it undermines scientific reasoning. Can’t find a scientific answer, just call it divine intervention, quit thinking about it and call it science … That’s so clearly and profoundly degenerative that it verges on evil.
What I'm saying is that your main argument is non-scientific. Who is correct concerning the ultimate "whys" of creation actually doesn't matter in science. Does everyone who benefits from Newton's Principia Mathematica agree with him on theology—which, according to Newton, was the foundation of his work? Undoubtedly not. Is everyone who loves Bach—who dedicated every on of his works "To the glory of God"—a 17th-century, high-Church Lutheran like him? No.
The alarm over the Intelligent Design folks seems to me to arise from historical ignorance. People always have had their own reasons for doing their art or formulating their hypotheses. I also seem to detect a special alarm by liberals and libertarians about the ID folks, as opposed to the creationists, perhaps because the ID scholars have real degrees and no Southern accents that are easy for city-folks to dismiss as ignorant. Michael Behe, for example, speaks very well and writes very compellingly, following the rules of reasoning at least as carefully as Richard Dawkins.
It won't be proved in high school class whether God created man or flatworms did. As long as the kids do their experiments and write their papers by the rules and procedures of science (invented by believers in God, by the way), drawing their inferences according to logic, who cares whether the teacher tells them Darwin had it wrong? The practice of science, not the theology, is what counts.