It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ???
Isn't that one of the major criticism of ID ... That it never gets published ? But then if it is not supposed to be publish , than how can someone critic ID on this particular point ?
I also disagree with your saying that ID is simply creationist propaganda. The only thing it has in common with creationism is that it is not naturalistic. Many ID proponents believe in evolution, but not in a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.
I'm not gonna go on the pseudo-science thing, because we would need to give a definition of science, should science arrive at simply naturalistic conclusions etc. etc. which goes way off the topic.
It still remains a fact that ID was what creationists chose to get evolution out of the classrooms. And if it has nothing to do with evolution, as you seem to be saying here, then why do they always whine about it? It's not abiogenesis they want it taught alongside, it's evolution.
We'll have to agree that the term 'evolution' means a lot of things. From simple 'descent with modifications' to the 'tree of life'. Anyways, I would think that in the end, it would have to go down to ID being taught alongside naturalistic abiogenesis and directed panspermia as an alternative explanation to the origin of life on earth. Because I agree that those that want it to be taught alongside evolution (in the 'tree of life' sense) are most probably creationists. For almost everybody else it would be regarding the origin of life. (except for those who believe in guided evolution, such as Behe. They are pretty much a third category).