The problem with ID is that if the court hadn't rule that creationism had no place in the schools, the "theory" wouldn't have caught steam. Now with the Dover ruling, the proponents of ID scaled back and are now trying to push "arguments against evolution."
A theory is suppose to explain why things are they way it is. That means you start at the bottom observing, collecting facts, etc... Then you start forming an explanation as to why this and this happens. Over time, you modify your explanation and ideas until it fits with reality until you have a theory that can fully explain the topic in question. ID does it absolutely the opposite way. They started out with what they believe is an absolute truth and start looking for evidence to support it, and discarding anything that disproves their explanation instead of modifying their initial assumptions. That is so not science. Look at it this way. ID says that there is an intelligent designer but they never make any attempt to identify who that intelligent designer is. Can you imagine if a bunch of physicists propose that the earth is getting an influx of solar energy to sustain the planet but make no attempts to identify where the energy is coming from?
