You may believe that, and the proponents may be pushing that, but as I've been following creationism for a while, I've seen it evolve into Intelligent Design as a relatively more scientifically palatable way of saying "God did it."
To accept ID as purely scientific, I'd like to see evidence for it. NOT supposed lack of evidence for evolution not explaining things, but actual evidence showing ID. You advance a scientific theory by showing actual evidence for the theory, not by showing weaknesses of opposing theories. At most, that tactic can destroy the opposing theories, but will do nothing to advance yours (unless you believe ID would only accepted if there were a vacuum of theory on the subject)
At that, according to the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, I'd say Intelligent Design is still far back at the level of hypothesis, untested and unsupported scientifically on its own.
Get some evidence and develop a real scientific theory, then you can try for equal time in the classroom.
Actually, ID's founders really weren't interested in "creationsism." Creationists have seized upon ID because it assists their arguments. To fault ID for that is a bit like faulting medical advancement because religious hospitals use newly devised treatments.
ID uses a different method for criticizing current evolutionary theory. It uses mathematical modeling. According to this modeling based on information theory and only possible because of the advent of computers and their ability to crunch huge numbers, the probability of such a complex system is impossible given the amount of time available. Modeling is now used in every field from aerodynamics to quantum physics. If we're told there's a mathematical problem, then I'm an adult, I can handle it.
See my #57 above.
Do you believe that other intelligent life exists in the universe? Given the vast numbers of stars, planets, etc., there is a likelihood that other intelligent life exists out there. We won't go into UFO sightings and all the discussion in that area. But it's a valid discussion.
What's wrong with the notion that a more advanced civilization has "seeded" this planet? That accomodates the ID model and it recognizes that the origin of intelligent life could have an easy explanation elsewhere in the universe that we're simply not seeing yet.
There is no evidence for evolution, yet it gets taught in the classroom as science, which it is not. All that evoilution is is a materialistic/atheistic philosophy posing as science.