I don't mean ID is good by any means, but I think it's better and less stifling to science than literal creationism. At least ID is loosely based on science. Creationism completey ignores it. That seems worse to me.
ID is proposing science that is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. As Behe testified at Dover, the very definition of science would have to change to permit ID, and that definition would also permit astrology.
Dogma driven science is a perversion, and nothing resembling real science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2