Sigh...how many times will the obvious have to be repeated before the general public clues in to the bogus information being put out by the "scientific community".
The problem that the "scientific community" has with ID is not related to scientific facts, but stems from their own philosophical leanings toward naturalism. Some of them want to stiffle religion, others carry delusional fears that "fundamentalists" are taking control of government.
With so many things (porn, homosexuality, abortion, TV programs rife with violence, sex & profanity, prayer prohibited at school function, etc., etc., etc) that have become almost acceptable as the norm by our nation, it's hard to believe that some people actually think that "fundamentalist" Christians control our government. But whatever...
Here are some good points from Richard Buggs:
But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.
But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.[my emphasis]