Why would a flaw (or flaws), in a scientific theory suggest a non-scientific approach as a rational option? For ID to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. There have been no tests suggested which might be used to falsify the theory, so the statement quoted above makes about as much sense as saying, "Once the Copernican theory of heliocentrism is shown to be flawed, students might then be able to look into astrology with more of an open mind."
Who says astrology ain't science? What's YOUR sign?