The issue brought against Intelligent Design is that is not, and cannot be, science. Although I personally have no issue with individuals believing in ID, it adds nothing to the progression of science. Science requires theory to explain observations and create testable predictions. This is not what Intelligent Design does, and because of this ID is incompatible with a proper understanding of the scientific method. ID vs Natural Selection only seem to be equivalent to the average laymen. It is only when you progress from reading about science to actually doing science that the shortcomings of ID become apparent. You mention ID bringing a reevaluation of the facts, but its arguments bring nothing useful to the table and only serve to confuse those not well versed in the intricacies of the discussion at hand. The reason so few reputable scientists seem willing to entertain ID discussion is not because of any prejudice, but because they see the arguments as what they are and have discarded them already. You bring up many off hand questions, but have you honestly looked at what science has to say about those questions? In virtually every case, the questions brought by Intelligent Design advocates have already been answered by modern science. In the few cases that science does not have a complete answer, ID adds nothing to the discussion but to say "God did it" which gives us no better understanding and stifles real research into causes. I do not mean to be confrontational or offensive, but it is important that people understand what ID really is and why it is not treated as real science.
