Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

Stephen Meyers is one of the most prominant ID'ers out there and he believes in an old earth. The point of ID is to simply SHOW design. It had NOTHING to do with the age of the earth. It's not an important issude when it comes to ID.

The point of ID (which is seperate from Creationism) is to SHOW design. Not how old the earth is. Intelligent Design shows the complexity of life. Michael Behe for instance makes a great case for ID. Kenneth Miller summed it up to a mouse trap. ALL that work Behe has done and Miller think's he refuted it in 5 minutes with a mouse trap. Silly. Cells are complex no way around it. Age of the earth doesnt matter. If it does for some, so be it. There are some Creationist who believe in an old earth to, so what. It doesn't discredit the movement because the main point of ID is design, not age.

I was sucked in my the topic heading. In the OP ID isn't mentioned, only Creationism. Maybe it was included in the heading because people think they are one in the same? They aren't. Just like The TOE and Abiogenesis are different, so are ID and Creationism. Im not sure this is the right thread to discuss the matter ( the difference between ID and Creationism). Is there one?Anyway, ID would have no need for new dating techniques as it deals with complex biological structures and so forth. Not Age.