I hope IDC will be as unsuccessful in its quest to renew culture as it has been in its efforts to revolutionize science. Let's not forget one thing that the Intelligent Design Creationists say that Design thinking will recognize: that societies and social behavior have also been designed for certain purposes. Am I wrong in wondering if anything at odds with this perceived social purpose will not be tolerated?
Daniel Dennett has argued that the Darwinian revolution frees us from the deterministic dead-end of mind-first philosophy. While we understand that most distinctions (life, species, language, consciousness, etc.) are more accurately seen as differences of degree than as differences in essence, we can make distinctions when they are useful to us.
For example, we understand that all languages are part of a continuum in which distinctions can't be made with complete certainty. However, a traveler to Paris can buy a French phrasebook based on the fact that certain oversimplifications are necessary in life.
In the same way, morality without mind-first philosophical baggage is not doomed to utter subjectivity. Just because we don't have the convenience of an essentialist doctrine that declares that 'right' and 'wrong' are mutually exclusive universals does not mean that anything goes. We can determine the fitness of certain behavior or moral choices in their context, and declare certain ethical distinctions that we feel are necessary.
Intelligent Design Creationism wants us to acknowledge purpose in Nature. If we fail to see it, that simply means our imaginations have to be 'retrained.' Imagine what's in store for us if we fail to acknowledge the grand purpose in human society.