Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I just skimmed this thread so this may have been covered.Since I started on this forum I have been trying to understand why there is a problem between the evolutionists and the supporters of ID. I have taken quotes from both Talk Origins and the Discovery Institute on the compatibility of ID and Evolution. I can’t see where they are in conflict.Talk Origins claims that evolution is scientifically solid but that it only claims to be able to demonstrate why it happened. The Discovery Institute purports to only have a problem when the so called neo-darwinists claim that the whys are known, and that the whys rule out any metaphysical involvement. It seems to me that the two views are compatible.Talk Origins doesn’t rule out theistic evolution which is roughly what the Discovery Institute supports.From Talk Origins
Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.From Discovery Institute2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.What is the problem?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.