Do not mistake ID for being a purely teleological movement though. There is more there and it would be foolish to ignore it.
I am aware of the political games being played with regards intelligent design. I think the games are being played on both sides of the argument. Some scientist seem to prefer arguing against YEC (so much easier and much more fun), and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design.
The literal meaning of the term "intelligent design" is not teleology. All that is required for intelligent design is intelligence and design. I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.
Scientists should be questioning the definition, not accepting it because "somebody said so". The reason they do accept it is to avoid debate. It allows them to be ambivalent about the term "intelligent design" and paint as creationism theories which are not.
The infinite regression issue is not specific to intelligent design. The laws of nature have the same problem.
With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.
If a group of druids suddenly got together and tried to sell druidism as evolution, would it be acceptable to claim that 'drevolution proponentsuids' have 'admitted evolution = druidism' and therefore it is not science? If you did, I'd be just as suspicious of your motives as I am with your reaction to intelligent design.
Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.
I can see you are reacting to the questions of intelligence and design on the basis of where they came from, or who asked them, rather than their absolute content. That would not give scientists credibility in my opinion.
I don't think Molbiogirl really meant that ID proponents have admitted that ID is actually creationism in disguise, because I don't think they admit that at all...
Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism:
Sounds like you may be suggesting she get "on message".
There is little point debating the politics of a situation using technical references. If Molbiogirl's comment can morph into the opposite of what it says then her argument is a little too flexible for my liking.
While I do think your point that ID and creationism are different theories is undeniably accurate, that doesn't mean that it is an invalid shortcut for evolutionists to damn ID with creationist associations, because these associations most certainly exist.
But political counter-strategy masquerading as scientific argument and rigour only appears as corrupted science.
The fact that such a poison chalice as "intelligent design" even exists poses a fundamental question for science. It has chosen to pre-empt a theory for lack of confidence in scientific definition. It is as if science could be undermined by the ramifications of its own definition of intelligent design, and so accepts one which avoids the problems.