Partial, intra-species evolution, yes, of course. Finches growing longer beaks, dogs specializing, horses getting larger, sure. General evolution, no. It just doesn't make scientific sense.
The three great secular theorists of modernism--Darwin, Marx, and Freud--are simply falling apart under scientific scrutiny. Darwin is evidently the last to go in the popular imagination, but go he will. It's inevitable. You will find the most committed Darwinists among the committed atheists at the New York Times, not among genuine scientists.
Take your ingredients, bake for very long periods of time, throw in a bit of isolation and natural disaster, dash with changing climate and viola you've got new species popping up all over the place.
Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. The way I see it evolution attempts to explain differentiation in existing species, while ID attempts to explain origin of life. ID theorists don't seem to be saying that the intelligence behind creation is still creating new forms (which is obviously taking place) and evolution theory does not apply to anything other than species differentiation (which by definition would require a species to start from).
EBUCK
Haha! "Inevitable," eh? And how are you so certain you can predict the future fate of a particular scientific theory? You sound like more than a bit of a "historicist" -- like Marx -- yourself. Marx thought all sorts of historical developments (that never happened) were "inevitable".
Extrapolating scientific theories beyond their particular domains is always questionable, but if you want to play that game then I would suggest that Darwin is more aptly grouped with a different "great secular theorist of modernism" -- Adam Smith -- and that his ideas have experienced much the same happy fate on subsequent investigation and elaboration.