Let me see if I can explain the thinking that is going on by using an example.
Consider the Biblical tale of the Flood.
In the science based forum where the flood has been discussed, one requirement is that assertions MUST be backed up with external evidence. We've had interminable discussions that revolve around just that point.
The key though is that there must be external supporting objective evidence and it must remain constant and acroos multiple fields of inquiry.
Nowhere though, in those discussions does the question of "What does the story mean" or "What is the significance of the story?" arise.
Those are important and relevant questions but they are also qustions that cannot be answered through the scientific method. They would be great topics for the Bible Study forum.
The same is true of either Creationism or ID. Both can be interesting subjects to discuss, but until they develop a methodology and actual theory, one that can be tested objectively and refuted, they will never be Science. To be Science they would first need to begin with an acknowledgement that "If the evidence shows the premise is false, then I will discard this assumption and follow the evidence.
How many Creationists are going to be willing to say that if the evidence does not support a God created world I will joyfully discard the concept of a God created world?
To ever move them into the realm of Science, those are the requirements.