I was reading the thread on slashdot and there are many good comments. Most of them are critical of ID as a scientific theory.
I think people who push ID know exactly who their audience is. They know that these are not people who have been trained in science. If you think about even your average undergraduate who has finished a natural science degree that person will have spent 100s and 100s of hours studying science. Once you get to the Ph.D. level the amount of time spent is so great that the chasm of understanding between a layperson and a scientist can't be bridged. ID folks know this and they use that difference as cover for their arguments, but why?
I think the main reason ID proponents have tried so hard to stamp their ideas with the imprimatur of science is because science has been so successful. As a human endeavor in this material world few things have been as successful as science has at helping humans get the things they want. Prayer, while useful to many, has not had nearly the same track record of proven successes. In this context, the desire of religious people to make inroads between science and their faith is pretty clear. "look, we are as good as scientists, pay attention to us".
The problem is that they aren't. Science works because it relys on what works. I really think that is what it boils down to. Over time the inexorable move in science is toward things that work and away from things that don't. The progression goes something like this:
"Gravity bends space? Are you insane?"
"No, I think it really does"
"BS, I don't believe you"
"Seriously, I'm pretty sure it does and if I'm right X will happen."
"Yeah yeah, when I see it I'll believe it"
Of course we all know how that one ended and Einstein was proven to be correct. I'm sure some people would have liked to argue but there was the proof. If they wanted to make a case they'd have to come up with better proof. And so it goes in science. The way things go in a debate in ID is something like this:
"Hey, I've got this nifty idea about our origins"
"Really? Neeto, pass the salt"
"Yeah, and guess what, it is based in science!"
"Holy crap! It is provable and makes predictions people can test???"
"Um, well, no but I have some cool thought experiments..."
"yeah yeah, in my thoughts I can fly like superman, I'll believe it when I see it"
Of course no proof or predictions are forthcoming from the ID crowd. I'd love to see something like ID that is provable and can make useful predictions. I think it would be a huge breakthrough in the world of science. However, until that day this is simply an attempt to call religion science.