ID was always a strategy rathr than a coherent idea in itself. Part of that strategy was to form a "united front" between different groups of antievolutionists (mainly YECs and OECs). Another part was to try to avoid overt appeals to religious belief. Of course this removed all young-earth arguments and even made the group averse to putting forward anything but the vaguest or most tentative hypotheses as to what might have occurred.
So there is no real contradiction between YEC and ID as positions. The disconnection is in the goals - many YECs want no compromise with old-earth positions and ID as it stands is just such a compromise. Even those YECs prepared to make such a compromise will do so only as a strategy - and if it that strategy fails there is no reason for them to support it.
On the other hand if ID is to stand any chance of becoming a science it will have to divest itself of much of it's vagueness and become a clearer, more coherent position. But that would almost certianly force it to either endorse of deny YEC views - and neither option is likely to be acceptable to the current leadership.k